warning: at least one document could not be …€¦ · case 1:16-cv-12191-it document 1 filed...

WARNING: AT LEAST ONE DOCUMENT COULD NOT BE INCLUDED!You were not billed for these documents.

Please see below.

Document Number Document Description Pages Document Error

Document 1attachment

Attachment 1 DOCUMENT COULD NOT BE RETRIEVED!However, it may still be viewable individually.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

____________________________________ ) MATTHEW GUTWILL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.: ___________ ) TOWN OF FRAMINGHAM and ) KENNETH FERGUSON, Chief of the ) Framingham Police Dept., individually, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

1. By this action, Plaintiff Matthew Gutwill ("Det. Gutwill"), a 12-year veteran of

the Framingham Police Department ("FPD"), seeks redress against Defendants, Kenneth

Ferguson ("Chief Ferguson"), Chief of the FPD, and the Town of Framingham ("the Town"), for

violating Det. Gutwill's federal civil rights and the Massachusetts Public Employee

Whistleblower Statute, M.G.L. c. 149, §§ 185 et seq., when Chief Ferguson trumped up a charge

of "untruthfulness" against Det. Gutwill and suspended him, all in retaliation for his filing an

internal complaint against a fellow officer and reporting corruption within the FPD to the Federal

Bureau of Investigation ("FBI").

2. Almost one year before his suspension, Det. Gutwill had made himself very

unpopular within a segment of the FPD when he reported that a fellow officer, Joseph Godino

("Det. Godino"), had knowingly testified untruthfully in court ("the Godino Complaint"). As a

result of filing the Godino Complaint, Det. Gutwill was shunned and harassed by his co-workers.

Case 1:16-cv-12191-IT Document 1 Filed 10/28/16 Page 1 of 25

2

3. After an Internal Affairs officer conducted an extensive investigation into Det.

Gutwill's complaint and found Det. Godino had been untruthful on the stand, Chief Ferguson

took the highly improper and unusual step of asking the Internal Affairs officer who wrote the

report to reverse his findings. When that officer refused, Chief Ferguson appointed another

officer who, unsurprisingly, wrote a new report with contradictory findings.

4. At or around the same time, Chief Ferguson decided to remove Det. Gutwill from

the prestigious DEA Task Force to which he had been assigned to work for the past seven and a

half years, and then in an attempt to cover up the retaliatory nature of this decision, one of the

Deputy Chiefs falsely told Det. Gutwill that the decision to remove him had been made by the

DEA, not Chief Ferguson.

5. Chief Ferguson was motivated to improperly interfere in the internal affairs

investigation because he wanted to cover up a police officer's perjury and thus avoid additional

bad press. At this time, he and his department were facing a spate of unflattering TV, newspaper

and internet press concerning a theft of money from the FPD evidence room and had recently

settled a publicized legal dispute with an officer who alleged he had been retaliated against for

his union activities. Also, at this time, there was significant turmoil between the Chief and the

FPD Supervisors Union as they were engaged in contentious contract negotiations. In the midst

of all of these problems within the FPD and the bad press the FPD had been receiving, Chief

Ferguson did not want it known that one of his officers lied under oath.

6. Recognizing that Chief Ferguson's improper interference in the Godino

investigation was reflective of what had become an entrenched practice of tolerating corruption

within the FPD that threatened the department's credibility and its ability to effectively perform

its tasks in the community it serves, Det. Gutwill met with officials from the FBI in late January


3

2016 and reported not only what had occurred in the Godino investigation, but also numerous

other incidences of illegal and otherwise improper conduct at the FPD which Chief Ferguson had

either encouraged or was deliberately indifferent to.

7. One week later, on February 5, 2016, during a lengthy phone conversation with

Chief Ferguson, Det. Gutwill told Chief Ferguson that he had gone to the FBI and reported FPD

corruption and wrongdoing. On this call, Det. Gutwill complained to Chief Ferguson about his

failing to control his deputy chiefs, his interference in the Godino investigation, his retaliating

against him by removing him from the DEA Task Force, and other instances of improper and

illegal conduct within the FPD unrelated to Det. Gutwill.

8. Apoplectic that Det. Gutwill had involved the FBI, and realizing that Det. Gutwill

had apparently not yet received the message that there are serious consequences to speaking out

against corruption in the department (i.e., his removal from the DEA Task Force), Chief

Ferguson decided to take even more decisive action to silence Det. Gutwill, this time using a

method that he and his deputies had already successfully employed with several other officers

who dared to speak out, that is, to trump up a charge of "untruthfulness" and use that to force an

officer to resign.

9. To that end, Chief Ferguson set out on a mission to discredit Det. Gutwill, tarnish

his reputation, and silence him. Less than one week after Det. Gutwill's attorney wrote a letter to

Town counsel spelling out how Chief Ferguson had improperly interfered in the Godino

investigation and retaliated against Det. Gutwill, and only two weeks after Town counsel's

assurance that no retaliation against Det. Gutwill would be tolerated, Chief Ferguson issued a

"Notice of Investigation" into Det. Gutwill. According to Chief Ferguson, during an "off-the-

record" call on February 5, 2016, Det. Gutwill told the Chief that he was going to "turn the place


4

upside down" or "blow this place up," which the Chief purportedly understood to mean that Det.

Gutwill planned to cause substantial internal controversy with the FPD. Chief Ferguson knew

Det. Gutwill did not make these precise statements, but he also knew it was his word against Det.

Gutwill's. Knowing Det. Gutwill would never admit to making statements he never made given

his unblemished reputation for honesty, Chief Ferguson approved the retention of an outside

investigator to determine whether Det. Gutwill had made the precise quoted statements.

Predictably, Det. Gutwill denied making the precise quoted statements during his interview with

the Town's investigator, though he did admit to stating something similar. Chief Ferguson then

seized upon Det. Gutwill's denial and suspended him for denying that he "threatened to 'blow the

place up,' 'turn it upside down,' or something to that effect" (emphasis added). But Det. Gutwill

had never denied saying words to that effect, so the basis for the contrived suspension was

obviously inherently flawed. Mission accomplished, indeed.

10. The Defendants' decision to suspend Det. Gutwill was, in reality, motivated by

Det. Gutwill's instigation of the Godino Complaint and, ultimately, his reporting on a matter of

public concern to the FBI: police corruption. Defendants would not have reached the same

decision, much less gone to such great lengths to reach a decision, had Det. Gutwill not taken the

actions he did.

PARTIES

11. Det. Gutwill is an individual who resides in Ashland, Middlesex County,

Massachusetts.

12. Defendant Town of Framingham is a body politic situated in Middlesex County,

Massachusetts.


5

13. Chief Ferguson is an individual who resides in Northbridge, Worcester County,

Massachusetts. At all relevant times, he served as Chief of Police for the Town.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14. This Court has original jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331

because it involves a claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

15. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2) because

Ferguson resides in this district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to

the claims at issue occurred in this district.

FACTS

Background

16. Det. Gutwill has worked in law enforcement for over 22 years. After 4 years as a

police officer and detective in the Town of Ashland, in 2004, Det. Gutwill began working for the

Town.

17. Throughout his career, Det. Gutwill has performed his duties with honesty and

integrity, and he has demonstrated a great commitment to the law enforcement profession.

18. Det. Gutwill's performance reviews have always been positive and have never

shown any deficiencies. Prior to the investigation described below, he had never been

investigated by the FPD for untruthfulness, conduct unbecoming an officer, or any other alleged

violation of an applicable rule or regulation.

19. As a result of Det. Gutwill's work and experience, he has been recognized locally

and nationally for his undercover work and frequently is asked to teach and make presentations

at law enforcement seminars. Det. Gutwill has served as President of the New England

Narcotics Officers Association. He is also a delegate of the National Narcotic Officers


6

Association. As a result of holding these positions, Det. Gutwill has spoken at the Massachusetts

Statehouse, worked with State representatives to file bills for public safety, and he has traveled to

Colorado to meet with law enforcement in regards to marijuana legalization. Det. Gutwill also

served as President of the Framingham Police Association for over 8 years. In that position, he

was responsible for overseeing the Association's day to day operations and fundraising, and he

oversaw over $1.2 million in investments. Det. Gutwill also spearheaded the Christmas meal

and shop-with-a-cop programs.

20. Det. Gutwill has testified in hundreds of prosecutions in the state and federal

courts, including in this district.

21. Several years after his arrival, in 2008, in addition to his regular duties, Det.

Gutwill was assigned to the prestigious United States Drug Enforcement Administration State

and Local Task Force Program ("DEA Task Force").

22. As a local officer working on the DEA Task Force, Det. Gutwill was deputized to

perform the same functions as DEA special agents. He worked in conjunction with federal and

other local police to investigate and prosecute cases involving drug trafficking, manufacturing

and distribution.

23. Det. Gutwill worked full-time on the DEA Task Force and, when needed,

performed overtime work for the FPD.

24. Det. Gutwill was completely committed to his career, and often worked 70-80

hour weeks.

25. After Det. Gutwill's initial assignment to the DEA Task Force, on April 1, 2008,

his appointment was continuously reconfirmed multiple times thereafter.


7

26. Over the years, Det. Gutwill's work significantly contributed to the seizure of

large quantities of illegal narcotics, large amounts of cash and property, and resulted in the

incarceration of many involved in the illegal drug trade.

27. The FPD has benefitted financially from Det. Gutwill's work on the DEA Task

Force. A percentage of monies and properties seized by the Task Force is remitted back to the

FPD and used to: (i) pay overtime and training costs incurred by the FPD; and (ii) purchase

equipment and supplies to enforce the narcotics laws within the Town. As a result of Det.

Gutwill's work, the Town has purchased radios, firearms, and vehicles for command staff,

including two command communication vehicles that cost a total of $370,000.

28. In 2013, Chief Ferguson became the Town's Chief of Police, succeeding Stephen

Carl, who had hired Det. Gutwill.

The Godino Complaint and Investigation

29. On or about September 22, 2015, Det. Gutwill filed a written complaint charging

that a fellow officer, Det. Godino, lied on the witness stand during a hearing in Framingham

District Court. Prior to filing the Godino Complaint with one of his supervisors, Sgt. Christopher

Montuori ("Sgt. Montuori"), Det. Gutwill had verbally informed Deputy Chief Kevin Slattery

("Dep. Chief Slattery") of his concerns as well as Brian Simoneau, who, among other roles,

served as Assistant to the Chief. Det. Gutwill's written complaint against Det. Godino is

attached hereto as Exhibit A.

30. The Godino Complaint arose out of a court hearing that had been held on

September 1, 2015 in connection with a motion to suppress a gun found in a car following a

motor vehicle stop in which Det. Godino, Det. Gutwill and other officers were involved. In the

complaint, Det. Gutwill charged that Det. Godino's testimony, including his failure to disclose to


8

the Assistant District Attorney ("ADA") that he had received confidential information prior to

the vehicle stop from a confidential informant, was knowingly false, may have tainted the

criminal trial, and impugned Det. Gutwill's reputation, honesty and credibility by suggesting that

Det. Gutwill had acted on his own in stopping the vehicle without probable cause.

31. Immediately after filing the Godino Complaint, Det. Gutwill began being

harassed by fellow FPD detectives and his supervisors, who were unhappy he had charged a

fellow detective with dishonesty. He was shunned and ignored. For example, when Det. Gutwill

would enter the FPD office, other detectives would leave the room, and when Det. Gutwill

arrived for in-service training, the Narcotics Group stopped their conversation and turned their

backs on him. Det. Gutwill was no longer called to assist with cases. Det. Gutwill reported this

harassment to Lieutenant Blaise Tersoni ("Lt. Tersoni"), Dep. Chief Slattery, Chief Ferguson,

and the Town's Human Resources ("HR") Director, Dolores Hamilton. Dep. Chief Slattery told

him to "suck it up." Initially, the HR Director took no action. Eventually, she invited Det.

Gutwill to a meeting, but two members of the police command staff entered after the meeting

had begun. One of them, Dep. Chief Slattery, took over the meeting, which intimidated and

silenced Det. Gutwill.

32. Chief Ferguson assigned Sgt. Montuori to conduct an Internal Affairs

investigation of the Godino Complaint.

33. Sgt. Montuori conducted a thorough investigation. He reviewed the transcript of

Det. Godino's testimony at the hearing and interviewed all of the ADAs and officers involved

with the case (nine persons in total), including Det. Gutwill and Det. Godino.

34. On November 19, 2015, in a five and a half page, single spaced report, Sgt.

Montuori issued his findings sustaining the allegations in the Godino Complaint (the "Montuori


9

Report"). See Exhibit B hereto. In particular, Sgt. Montouri concluded, based on a

preponderance of the evidence, that Det. Godino had been untruthful and, accordingly, had

violated FPD Rule 1.02 (Conduct Unbecoming a Framingham Police Officer) and FPD Rule 4.7

(Truthfulness).

35. Sgt. Montuori forwarded his Report to Chief Ferguson.

Chief Ferguson's Interference in the Internal Investigation of the Godino Complaint

36. Two weeks after Chief Ferguson received the Montuori Report, on December 4,

2015, Chief Ferguson met with Det. Gutwill, Det. Gutwill's attorney, and other command staff.

Chief Ferguson thanked Det. Gutwill for coming forth with his complaint, which he said he

knew was difficult to do. Chief Ferguson did not state that he found Det. Gutwill's complaint to

be unfounded, but said that he had concluded that Det. Godino had made a mistake of the heart,

was trying to do the right thing (protect the identify of a confidential informant), and would be

sent for retraining. Chief Ferguson did not reveal that Montuori's Report had concluded the

opposite, namely, that Sgt. Montouri had found Det. Godino to have been untruthful, in violation

of FPD Rule 4.7, and to have engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer, in violation of FPD

Rule 1.02.

37. Later that evening, Lt. Tersoni, who knew what Sgt. Montuori had actually found,

called Det. Gutwill and told him of the Montuori Report findings.

38. Det. Gutwill, through his attorney, attempted to obtain a copy of the Montouri

Report, but was told that it was not yet ready for distribution.

39. Rather than release the November 19, 2015 Montuori Report, in early December

2015, Chief Ferguson asked Sgt. Montuori to change his findings from Sustained to Unfounded.

40. Sgt. Montuori refused to change his findings.


10

41. As a result, Chief Ferguson assigned Lieutenant Victor Pereira ("Lt. Pereira") to

review Sgt. Montuori's investigative report and the conclusions in it. Prior to this, Lt. Pereira

had experience handling only minor professional standards complaints as a ranking officer in

patrol and no internal affairs investigative experience. This was his first assignment after being

placed in the position by Chief Ferguson. Lt. Pereira had minimal investigative experience

compared to the average detective of any rank in the department.

42. Such a review of an Internal Affairs investigative report's findings is highly

unusual. It is also highly improper, because if impartial investigations are tampered with, they

have no credibility.

43. On December 21, 2015, Lt. Pereira issued his findings relating to the Godino

Complaint. Not surprisingly, Lt. Pereira reversed the findings in the Montouri Report and,

specifically, concluded that Det. Godino had testified truthfully at the suppression hearing.

44. Lt. Pereira did not perform his own investigation or any additional investigation,

and reported only that he had sat in on two of the interviews that Sgt. Montuori had conducted

(the interviews of Det. Godino and Sgt. Pomales, one of the officers involved in the traffic stop).

Nevertheless, he stated that he "disagreed" with Sgt. Montuori's findings. Lt. Pereira concluded,

"I'm concerned that this incident has cast a negative light on the Police Department and with the

officers in particular. I'm also concerned that this incident may cause a rift within the

Department and Narcotics Unit, if it hasn't done so already."

45. After receipt of Lt. Pereira's findings, on January 8, 2016, Chief Ferguson wrote a

memo that he circulated to Det. Godino, Det. Gutwill, and his Deputy Chiefs concerning the

matter. This also was highly unusual. In his memo, Chief Ferguson stated that he concurred

with Lt. Pereira's conclusion that Det. Godino had not violated any FPD rules and regulations,


11

and he concluded that Det. Gutwill's claim was "unfounded," meaning that "the alleged act did

not occur." The conclusion that Det. Gutwill's claim was "unfounded" and that "the alleged did

not occur" was a contradiction of what the Chief had originally stated on December 4, 2015.

Chief Ferguson Removes Det. Gutwill from the DEA Task Force

46. In December 2015, at or around the same time he ordered the reversal of the

findings with respect to Det. Godino, Chief Ferguson made the decision to remove Det. Gutwill

from the DEA Task Force.

47. He announced his decision to Det. Gutwill on January 29, 2016, only 8 days after

receiving the report he had commissioned from Det. Pereira.

48. In an attempt to disguise the retaliatory nature of this decision, Dep. Chief

Slattery told Det. Gutwill that Chief Ferguson made the decision to remove him from the DEA

Task Force because the Special Agent in Charge of the DEA Task Force, Michael Ferguson

("SAC Ferguson"), had requested Det. Gutwill's removal.

49. Det. Gutwill subsequently asked his immediate supervisor at the DEA whether

SAC Ferguson had made such a request and was told that he had not.

50. Three days later, Det. Gutwill's desk that had been located in the Narcotics Unit's

office of the FPD was removed from him.

Chief Ferguson's Motivations

51. On information and belief, Chief Ferguson was displeased with Sgt. Montuori's

findings because he was concerned about the public perception of his department in light of the

negative press it had been receiving lately, and he did not want it known publicly that one of his

officers had lied under oath.


12

52. Less than two weeks after Montuori issued his report finding that Det. Godino had

lied under oath on the stand, Fox 25 News reported on the Massachusetts Attorney General's

investigation into theft from the FPD evidence room, and it released details of a November 30,

2015 email from Chief Ferguson to other members of the department that had been leaked to it.

The email revealed that an AG investigation had begun, and it stated that Chief Ferguson had

placed Alan Dubeshter ("Officer Dubeshter"), the officer in charge of the evidence room, on a

paid administrative leave. The MetroWest Daily News also covered the evidence room scandals,

publishing several articles about them in the paper and online on December 2, 2015.

53. While in the throes of this barrage of negative press, Chief Ferguson was aware of

significant turmoil within the department, some of which had not yet been made public. For

example, in August 2015, the Framingham Police Superiors Officers Association, a 27-member

union that represented sergeants and lieutenants, had voiced concerns to Chief Ferguson about

his lack of oversight of his deputy chiefs, whom they believed harassed employees and targeted

them for disciplinary action. Also, the FPD had only recently settled a publicized legal dispute

with Officer Jeffrey DeRosa regarding a claim he had filed for retaliation relating to his union

activities.

54. Chief Ferguson effectuated the reversal of the findings in the Montouri Report

and the removal of Det. Gutwill from the DEA Task Force to protect himself and the FPD, and to

silence Det. Gutwill.

Det. Gutwill and Chief Ferguson's February 5, 2016 Phone Conversation

55. On February 5, 2016, Det. Gutwill and Chief Ferguson had a phone conversation.

They agreed it would be "off the record," meaning that they each could speak freely. They had


13

had many similar conversations in the past. Chief Ferguson said he had an "open door" and

encouraged such conversations.

56. During the call, Det. Gutwill first complained about Dep. Chief Slattery's conduct

and Chief Ferguson's inability or unwillingness to properly oversee him. Det. Gutwill told Chief

Ferguson that Dep. Chief Slattery had been emailing SAC Ferguson concerning his dispute with

Det. Gutwill about whether the DEA had requested Det. Gutwill's removal from the Task Force,

and this airing of the FPD's dirty laundry made the FPD look bad and harmed the FPD's

relationship with the DEA. Det. Gutwill reminded Chief Ferguson that when Dep. Chief Slattery

was competing with Deputy Chief Ronald Brandolini ("Dep. Chief Brandolini") for a position,

Dep. Chief Slattery had contacted the United States Attorney to try to learn whether Dep. Chief

Brandolini's wife was involved in a drug smuggling operation in order to smear Dep. Chief

Brandolini. Det. Gutwill also reminded Chief Ferguson that Dep. Chief Slattery had admitted to

Chief Ferguson that he lied during the trial of Scott Brown ("Det. Brown"), who had been

accused of pulling a gun on a civilian.

57. Also during the call, Det. Gutwill expressed his anger over Chief Ferguson's

improper involvement in, and exertion of influence over, the Godino Complaint investigation.

Det. Gutwill told Chief Ferguson, "You f****d me."

58. Det. Gutwill also expressed to Chief Ferguson that he believed he was being

removed from the DEA Task Force in retaliation for having submitted a complaint against Det.

Godino.

59. Det. Gutwill told Chief Ferguson that he had met with the FBI and informed them

of the Chief's interference in the Godino investigation and other instances of illegal and

otherwise improper conduct within the FPD.


14

60. Det. Gutwill further stated that he intended to file a complaint with the

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination ("MCAD") and he said that if all these and

other instances of corruption within the FPD became public, it would not be good for the FPD,

Chief Ferguson or himself. He said words to the effect that "this will not end good for anyone,"

"it will be a sh**show," and "there will be a trail of destruction."

Det. Gutwill's Report to the FBI of Multiple Examples of Corruption in the FPD

61. Det. Gutwill was very concerned about the numerous instances of corruption

within the FPD that he had witnessed, including the Chief's cover up of the Godino investigation.

He believed that the corruption negatively impacted the officers' ability to do their jobs in a

lawful and effective manner, and could result in unlawful and unfair convictions. Thus, on

December 18, 2015, Det. Gutwill contacted Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") Peter

Levitt and asked for the contact information for someone in the Public Corruption Unit.

62. AUSA Levitt referred Det. Gutwill to AUSA Eugenia Carris, and they spoke on

the phone. Det. Gutwill stated that he wanted to report corruption within the FPD. AUSA Carris

then referred Det. Gutwill to the FBI.

63. On January 28, 2016, Det. Gutwill and his attorney met with FBI Special Agent

Kevin Constantine ("Agent Constantine") and FBI Supervisory Special Agent Jared Hewitt

("Agent Hewitt"). Det. Gutwill told Agents Constantine and Hewitt about multiple instances of

corruption within the FPD including, but not limited to,

(i) Det. Godino having lied under oath and Chief Ferguson having covered it up;

(ii) Members of the FPD Narcotics Unit putting false information in their affidavits in

order to hide the fact that they, in violation of proper protocols, (a) let confidential

informants buy drugs for their own use after making undercover buys for the


15

FPD, (b) let witnesses participate in undercover buys, and (c) used an informant

to create probable cause for search warrants even after they were informed by the

DEA and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that the

informant was involved in illegal activity and intercepted on a federal wire;

(iii) Members of the FPD Detective Division taking "mementos" from crime scenes

which they did not catalogue and which they hung in their offices as decorations;

(iv) Chief Ferguson having allowed Lt. Pereira to study for his law degree while on

duty;

(v) Asst. Simoneau, an attorney who was employed by the Town as a special police

officer and Assistant to the Chief, being allowed to appear in court on behalf of

his private clients during his FPD work hours and accessing law enforcement

databases for the benefit of his private clients;

(vi) Deputy Chiefs failing to put in full work weeks; and

(vii) Multiple sergeants double dipping (e.g., saying they were taking the day off of

work but instead working "overtime" or being paid for regular duty but also

getting paid for working on a special detail at the same time) and Chief Ferguson

being aware of the sergeants' double dipping.

64. In addition to telling Chief Ferguson on February 5, 2016 that he had made this

report to the FBI, Det. Gutwill told Assistant Town Manager James Duane on February 9, 2016.

Chief Ferguson Trumps Up a Charge of Untruthfulness Against Det. Gutwill

65. On or about February 16, 2016, Town counsel informed Det. Gutwill that the

Town took his allegations "seriously" and had retained an outside investigator to investigate

them. He stated that "any retaliation against you as a result of your complaint will not be


16

tolerated." Town counsel identified the allegations that the investigator would be looking into as

whether (i) Det. Gutwill's removal from the DEA Task Force was in retaliation for his filing the

Godino Complaint; (ii) Dep. Chief Slattery was untruthful in the Scott Brown case; and (iii) Dep.

Chief Brandolini was recorded on a federal wiretap. Notably missing from this list was whether

Chief Ferguson had improperly interfered in the Godino investigation. See Letter from

Christopher J. Petrini to Det. Gutwill attached hereto at Exhibit C.

66. On February 25, 2016, Town counsel received a letter from Det. Gutwill's

attorney. The letter set forth additional facts supporting Det. Gutwill's prior allegations that

Chief Ferguson had improperly interfered in the Godino investigation. See Letter from James W.

Simpson, Jr. to Christopher Petrini dated Feb. 25, 2016, attached hereto at Exhibit D.

67. Less than a week later, on March 2, 2016, and only two weeks after Town counsel

assured Det. Gutwill that retaliation against him for filing his complaint would not be tolerated,

Chief Ferguson issued a "Notice of Investigation" into Det. Gutwill. See Notice of Investigation,

dated March 2, 2016, attached hereto as Exhibit E. Thus, the Chief turned what was supposed

to be an investigation into corruption and other wrongdoing in his department into an

investigation into the person who blew the whistle.

68. Knowing that Det. Gutwill had gone to the FBI, and having his own interference

in the internal affairs investigation come to light, Chief Ferguson decided to trump up a charge of

untruthfulness against Det. Gutwill which would justify his taking adverse employment action

against Det. Gutwill. Specifically, Chief Ferguson asked the Town's outside investigator, Julie

A. Moore, Esq. ("Moore") to find out if Det. Gutwill would admit to her that he had made a

specific statement when speaking with the Chief on February 5, 2016. The specific statement

was that Det. Gutwill would "turn the place upside down" or "blow the place up." See Exh. E.


17

As a result, Moore wrote a 14-page single spaced report concerning whether Det. Gutwill made

that specific statement during his call with Chief Ferguson ("the August 15 Moore Report").

69. The Notice of Investigation also tasked Moore with investigating whether Det.

Gutwill was truthful when he stated during the February 5, 2016 call that: (i) Dep. Chief Slattery

had lied in the Scott Brown case and (ii) Dep. Chief Brandolini "was recorded on a federal

wiretap." See Exh. E.

70. In the August 15 Moore Report, which was limited solely to whether Det. Gutwill

had stated he would "turn the place upside down" or "blow the place up" when he spoke with

Chief Ferguson on February 5, Moore stated that Det. Gutwill denied to her that he has used

those specific words. The August 15 Moore Report does not contain any findings with respect to

the other two allegedly false statements purportedly made by Det. Gutwill. See Para. 69, supra.

71. Only four days later, on August 19, 2016, with the August 15 Moore Report as his

"cover," Chief Ferguson placed Det. Gutwill on administrative leave. His stated reasons for

doing so were that Det. Gutwill "falsely denied" to Moore that he had "threatened to 'blow the

place up,' 'turn the place upside down,' or something to that effect." See Notice of Suspension,

Exhibit F hereto.

72. Notably, Chief Ferguson did not cite insubordination, conduct unbecoming of an

officer, or any reason other than "untruthfulness" for placing Det. Gutwill on administrative

leave. Knowing that he had no serious, substantive reason that was related in any way to Det.

Gutwill's performance of his duties which could possibly justify discharging Det. Gutwill, Chief

Ferguson manufactured a reason for the suspension.

73. On information and belief, Ms. Moore had issued a detailed, lengthy report on

July 1, 2016 ("the July 1 Moore Report"). According to an "executive summary" of the July 1


18

Moore Report, Moore was retained to investigate Det. Gutwill's complaints that: (i) his removal

from the DEA Task Force was in retaliation for filing the Godino complaint; (ii) he was being

harassed by other officers as a result of filing the Godino complaint; (iii) Chief Ferguson

interfered in the internal investigation of the Godino complaint; (iv) Dep. Chief Slattery had been

untruthful in the Scott Brown case; and (v) Dep. Chief Brandolini had been recorded on a federal

wiretap (which is a complete misinterpretation of what Det. Gutwill had stated with respect to

Dep. Chief Brandolini).

74. Det. Gutwill and his representatives have made multiple, repeated requests for the

full July 1 Moore Report. The Town has refused to provide it, and has only produced an

"executive summary" of that report (dated July 14, 2016) which, quite notably, omits all of

Moore's findings relating to Chief Fergusons' interference in the Godino investigation, Dep.

Chief Slattery's untruthfulness and Dep. Chief Brandolini being on a wiretap.

75. On information and belief, Chief Ferguson or some other Town agent directed

Ms. Moore to end her investigation into Chief Ferguson's interference in the Godino

investigation before her investigation was complete.

76. On information and belief, this is not the first time Chief Ferguson has attempted

to secure an officer's resignation by initiating investigations based on trumped-up charges of

"untruthfulness"; over the past two years this has occurred several times.

The Purported Reason for the Suspension Is Pretextual

77. During the time that Ms. Moore was conducting her investigation, the turmoil

within the FPD and the bad press continued.

78. For example, on March 23, 2016, Det. Brown filed a complaint against Dep.

Chief Slattery for threatening him and other members of the FPD, including Det. Gutwill.


19

79. On April 7, 2016, the Framingham Police Superior Officers Association held a

vote of no confidence in Chief Ferguson. The press reported the union president stating that

Chief Ferguson's deputy chiefs "harassed and mistreated" the department's superior officers, and

that the deputy chiefs targeted employees for disciplinary action. He was also reported stating

that Chief Ferguson "allow[ed] his deputies to run loose on the department and mistreat his

employees." See MetroWest Daily News Article (May 26, 2016), attached hereto at Exhibit G.

80. In early May, 2016, Chief Ferguson placed Dep. Chief Slattery, a material witness

Moore interviewed in connection with her investigation into Det. Gutwill's complaints, on

administrative leave. Town counsel reported to the press that it was "due to an alleged improper

verbal comment he made regarding a subordinate." See Exh. G.

81. Throughout this time, the FPD was in the middle of what the press reported were

"contentious negotiations" with the Framingham Superior Officers Association whose last

contract had expired in July, 2015. See Exh. G.

82. On information and belief, at the time Chief Ferguson placed Det. Gutwill on

leave, he was upset that Det. Gutwill made an internal complaint regarding Det. Godino's

untruthfulness and brought corruption issues to the FBI, thus adding to the list of controversies

facing his administration.

83. On information and belief, Chief Ferguson took adverse employment action

against Det. Gutwill in the hope that he would resign and in an attempt to keep the public from

learning of additional instances of misconduct within the FPD.

84. Chief Ferguson's purported reliance on the August 15 Moore Report's finding of

untruthfulness is pretextual. Chief Ferguson orchestrated the entire report as a means of


20

justifying his preordained decision to remove Det. Gutwill from his department once and for all

in retaliation for him going to the FBI.

85. In the Notice of Suspension that followed his receipt of the August 15 Moore

Report, in which Chief Ferguson advised Det. Gutwill that he was being place on administrative

leave, Chief Ferguson stated that Det. Gutwill had falsely denied to Moore that he had

"threatened to 'blow the place up,' 'turn the place upside down,' or something to that effect." See

Exh. E (emphasis supplied). In her August 15 Report, Moore indicates that Det. Gutwill denied

uttering the precise words, "turn the place upside down" or "blow the place up," but admitted that

he had used words to that effect in the sense that he said that a trail of destruction would follow if

all of the various problems within the FPD that he and Chief Ferguson had discussed during the

call came to light in the wake of a complaint being filed by him with the MCAD, and that no one

would win.

86. Thus, although Det. Gutwill denied using the precise words that Chief Ferguson

had attributed to him, he admitted using words to that effect. Accordingly, even the basis for the

Chief's contrived adverse employment action is patently false.

87. Prior to Det. Gutwill making internal and external complaints about wrongdoing

within the FPD, the FPD had never investigated him (or taken any adverse employment action

against him) for untruthfulness, conduct unbecoming an officer, or any other alleged violation of

an applicable rule or regulation.

88. Once Chief Ferguson received the August 15 Moore Report, which was the

"cover" he needed in order to take adverse employment action against Det. Gutwill, he did not

waste any time. On August 18, 2016, Det. Gutwill gave notice that he would be taking a three-

day leave beginning on Monday, August 22 to tend to his son who was having medical issues


21

due to end-stage liver disease and was about to have a liver transplant. (The transplant was

subsequently postponed.) On August 19, 2016, Det. Gutwill's last day before taking leave under

the Family and Medical Leave Act, and three days after he had the August 15 Moore Report in

hand, Chief Ferguson suspended Det. Gutwill.

COUNT I

(Retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 v. Kenneth Ferguson in his individual capacity)

89. Plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth above as if fully contained herein.

90. At all relevant times, Chief Ferguson was acting under color of state law.

91. Det. Gutwill spoke to the FBI as a citizen concerning matters of public concern,

thus his speech was protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

92. Det. Gutwill's (and the public's) interest in making the report to the FBI

outweighed any interest Chief Ferguson may have had in the efficient performance of the FPD.

93. Det. Gutwill's protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the

adverse employment actions taken against him by Chief Ferguson, and the Chief would not have

taken such adverse employment action absent the protected conduct.

94. As a direct and proximate result of Chief Ferguson's violations of 42 U.S.C. §

1983, Det. Gutwill has suffered significant damages, including economic damages, damages to

his personal and professional reputation, and emotional distress.

95. Det. Gutwill is also entitled to punitive damages because Chief Ferguson acted

with evil motive or intent, recklessly or with callous indifference to Det. Gutwill's federally

protected rights.

COUNT II

(Retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 v. Town of Framingham)



22

97. At all relevant times, Chief Ferguson was acting under color of state law.

98. At all relevant times, Chief Ferguson was an official of the Town of Framingham

with the authority to set and establish the final official government policy for the Town for

taking the adverse action (suspension) that he took against Det. Gutwill. As such, Chief

Ferguson's decision to place Det. Gutwill on administrative leave constituted an official policy of

the Town of Framingham.

99. Det. Gutwill spoke to the FBI as a citizen concerning matters of public concern,

thus his speech was protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

100. Det. Gutwill's (and the public's) interest in making the report to the FBI

outweighed any interest Chief Ferguson and the Town may have had in the efficient performance

of the FPD.

101. Det. Gutwill's protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the

adverse employment actions taken against him by Chief Ferguson and the Town, and the Chief

and Town would not have taken such adverse employment action absent the protected conduct.

102. The Town, through Chief Ferguson's conduct, subjected Det. Gutwill, or caused

him to be subjected, to the deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the

Constitution and laws of the United States.

103. The Town and Chief Ferguson were deliberately indifferent to Det. Gutwill's

federally protected rights when engaging in the conduct alleged above.

104. As a direct and proximate result of the Town's violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Det.

Gutwill has suffered significant damages, including economic damages, damages to his personal

and professional reputation, and emotional distress.


23

COUNT III

(Violation of M.G.L. c. 149, § 185(b)(1) v. Town of Framingham)


106. Det. Gutwill engaged in protected activity by making an internal report to the

FPD concerning Det. Godino's conduct and reporting to the FBI his reasonable belief that illegal

and otherwise improper activities were occurring within the FPD.

107. Det. Gutwill brought the illegal and otherwise improper activities to the attention

of the FPD by providing them with written notice, and the FPD had a reasonable opportunity to

correct them; alternatively, no prior written notice was required pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149, §

185(c)(2).

108. In retaliation for Det. Gutwill's protected conduct, FPD placed Gutwill on

administrative leave.

109. Det. Gutwill's protected conduct played a substantial or motivating part in the

FPD's retaliatory action.

110. Any non-retaliatory reasons for placing Det. Gutwill on administrative leave that

the FPD may assert are pretextual.

111. As a direct and proximate result of the Town's violation of M.G.L. c. 149, §

185(b)(1), Det. Gutwill has suffered significant damages, including loss of employment; lost

wages, benefits and other economic damages; costs and attorney's fees required to remedy the

legal wrongs done to him; damages to his personal and professional reputation; and emotional

distress.


24

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Matthew Gutwill requests that this Court grant the following

relief:

i. Enter judgment in favor of Det. Gutwill and against each Defendant on each and every Count of the Complaint;

ii. Order Chief Ferguson and the Town of Framingham to reinstate Det. Gutwill as a member of the FPD and DEA Task Force, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149, § 185(d)(2);

iii. Order Chief Ferguson and the Town of Framingham to reinstate full fringe benefits and seniority rights to Det. Gutwill, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149, § 185(d)(3);

iv. Award Det. Gutwill three times the lost wages, benefits and other remuneration, and interest thereon, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149, § 185(d)(4);

v. Award Det. Gutwill additional compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial for his injuries (including reputational harm, psychological injuries, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and impaired earning capacity);

vi. Award Det. Gutwill punitive damages as permitted by law;

vii. Award Det. Gutwill all reasonable costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to M.G.L. c. 149, § 185(d)(5) and as otherwise permitted by law;

viii. Award Det. Gutwill pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and

ix. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

JURY CLAIM

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY AS TO ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE


25

Respectfully submitted,

MATTHEW GUTWILL, By his attorneys,

/s/ Seth J. Robbins

Seth J. Robbins (BBO # 655146) [email protected] Carole C. Cooke (BBO # 646000) [email protected]

TODD & WELD LLP One Federal Street, 27th Floor Boston, MA 02110

(617) 720-2626 Dated: October 28, 2016


Case 1:16-cv-12191-IT Document 1-1 Filed 10/28/16 Page 1 of 1

Per your request in writiqg and your refusal to take a verbal complaint I am notifying you the following.

On September 22, 2015 upon arriving at F ram ingh am District Court to give testimony on the Pannisiand

Trinadad case I was advised ofthe following.

From the DA I was told Detective God ino and Officer Curtis have already given testimony and ifthis case

went any further there I a likely chance that the presiding Judge on this case would make a ruling that

the Officers were less then truthful.

I was told the issue was over information i had from an informant.

I was told Detective Cod ino called the DA on the morning of the 22nd and asked the DA to drop the case

Upon my objection that we were dismissing a gun case case the Da advised me that my testimony will

come info question based on the previous testimony. The DA advised me that they were d is mis sing the

case to protect myself from the court and a potential ruling that i perjured myself.

Based on the comments by the Da I had 5gt Montouri join myself and the two Da's in this discussion.

We both learned that Detective God ino and Officer Curtis met with the DA prior to testimony and at no

time did Detective Godino tell the DA that an informant was the source of the information that this

particular vehicle was coming into town with a gun. The DA stated that only after Office Curtis testimony

did the Da get a sense that there was mo re to this case then what was presented to them.

Upon the case being dismissed I requested the court testimony ofGodino and Curtis. From this

testimony I learned that Detective God ino did not inform the court that he was told a gun was in the car.

Godino stated " I don't recall" when asked if anyone told him a gun was in the car . Detective Godino

continued with his testimony including that he just arrived to assist in a stop and not revealing that this

was a ongoing operation.

Detective God ino rs testimony was less then truthful and in an attempt to protect a confidential

informant his testimony misled the court to believe the source ofthe information came from myself.

In an attempt to protect a confidential informant Detective Godino 's did great harm to my reputation

and credibility and allowed a motion to suppress a stop to turn into a trial of my actions and my

truthfulness.

As you a re aware that anytime as a police officer you make a allegation against another police officer it's

difficult. The rumors and the deflection and discredit ofthe person making the allegations is common in

a police environment is common and in this case it is not different.

The testimony by Detective God ino in this case is clearly less then truthful and bripgs to question the

actions ofthe drug unit in its current form.


Please see transcript for the following

Page 44

Line 2,3,8,9, 10,25,

Page 45

Line 1,2,3,4, 16,17,18,19,25

Page 46

Line 5,6,7,8

Page 47

Line 8,9,10,18,19,20,21,22,23,

Page 48

Line 17,18,19

Page 49

Line 25

COURTS COMMENTS PAGE 50

Line 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12

Page 51

Line 1,2,3,4,13,14,15,16,17,18,19


November 19, 2015

After evaluating the complaint and investigating the matter involving Detective joseph Godino I find

that the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding of the following;

Sustained on count number #1; Framlngham Police Department Rule 1,02 Conduct Unbecoming a

Framingham Police Officer

Sustained on count #2: Framingham Police Department Rule 4.7 Truthfulness

The determinations of these findings are based on the following facts and circumstances.

Testimony given by Detective Joseph Godino at the Framingham District Courthouse while under oath

on September 21, 2015.

Interviews with the following involved parties;

Detective Matthew Gu twill

Detective Joseph Godino

Sgt Richard Pomales

Lt Blaise Tersoni

Assistant District Attorney Daniel Brunelli

Assistant District Attorney Margaret Hegarty

Assistant United States Attorney Laura Monies

Detective Robert Lewis

Detective Christopher Pisano.

The original complaint lays out a pattern that Detective Godino failed to tell the truth on the stand in

order to protect identifying a confidential informant, and by doing so placed a burden on Detective

GutwilT s credibility with the Court. The original complaint also mentions that Detective Godino failed to

explain the use of a confidential Informant to the District Attorney's Office, which brought about the

testimony that is in question.

:


The issue in the Complaint that Detective Godino failed to explain the use of a Confidential Informant to

the District Attorney's Office is Unfounded. I interviewed Assistant United States Attorney Laura

Montes, who is the former Assistant District Attorney for the Framingham Office who was assigned this

case in Court, AUSA Montes explained in her interview that she reached out to Detectives Gutwill,

Godino, and Lewis and had multiple conversations with Detective Godino about his use of a confidential

informant on this case. ADA Montes was to handle the Motions for this case and Detective Godino and

she had discussed the matters. In interviewing Detective Godino, he too explained that he had multiple

conversations with ADA Montes about the use of a confidential informant in this case. Detective Godino

was under the Impression that the information for this Motion was transferred from ADA Montes to

ADA Dan Brunelli who ultimately handled the Motion, due to the fact that ADA Montes was removed

from the case due to her departure from the District Attorney's Office. AUSA Montes explained that she

does not believe she wrote any formal notes about the use of a CI in the case file because it had been

removed from her office and handed to ADA Brunelli, She does recall telling ADA in person about the

situation. In the brief promotion meeting ADA Brunelli had with Detective Godino he did not bring up

the fact of a CI nor asked Detective Godino about one. Detective Godino believed that he had the

knowledge due to the fact that ADA Montes had knowledge and believed the transfer of Information

was complete. In interviewing Detective Godino, he stated that after the Motion he had a discussion

with ADA Brunelli and at some point ADA Brunelli mentioned that he did remember something about a

car going to Hudson to do a robbery, which bolsters the fact that Detective Godino did inform the DA's

Officer of the information.

The following testimony by Officer Curtis, who was the first to testify in the Motion, from the

transcript, sets the line of questioning for Officer Godino.

Attorney Helwlg:

P10 L 17-19 Q. All right. So is it fair to say that when you got a call from Detective Gutwill to do a motor

vehicle stop that you suspected it was for something more than to just write a ticket?

Officer Curtis

L23 A.Ves

L24 Q, Okay, Did you know what it was going to be about?

L25. A.Yes

P11L1 Q. What did he tell you it was going to be about?

L2-3 A. I received a phone call from Detective Gutwill. He stated there was a possible firearm in the

vehicle.

In all interviews of Police Officers, previously mentioned, it is unquestioned that Detective Godino

received a phone call from a confidential informant of his who relayed the information that a firearm

was going to be transported into Framingham in a vehicle to be used in another crime. Detective Godino


was the sole Officer that received this information, and it was he who in turn informed other Detectives

and Supervisors working on this investigation. Detective Gutwill had no prior knowledge of any of this

information till it was learned from Detective Godino and passed on to others. The Courts line of

questioning believed that the information was Detective Gutwill's and he was the one who had passed

on this knowledge.

Helwig

P43L19-20 0,. Okay But didn't Detective Gutwill tell you that he thought there was a gun in the car?

Godino

L24A.I don't recall that

L25Q. Vou don't recaii that

P44L1 A. Him telling me, no !

L2 Q, Did anybody teil you that before you went up to them?

L3 A. I don't recall that

L4 Q. You don't recall anybody mentioning anything about a gun?

L5 A, At the time—

L6 THE COURT: He answered. He said 1 don't recall.

In interviewing Detective Godino he went on to clarify that he believed the questions were relating to

his time at the motor vehicle stop, and was going to say " At the time I was on scene? Walking up to the

vehicle?" But was cut off by the Court before he could ask. Though at this time in questioning it appears

that Detective Godino may be misleading the Court I believe that had Detective Godino been able to

clarify the question then the line of questioning could have been answered fully.

The line of questions and answers that lead to a finding of Sustained in Detective Godino being truthful

has to do with the following questions and answers.

Helwig

P44L8 Q, Okay And so why was it that you were called to the scene?

L10 A. We were in the area

P4SL16 Q, Okay, And when you were in the car what were you doing? Were you just patrolling? You

don't patrol do you


1

L17 A. I'm a Detective. If we have stuff that's going on, we do it

P46L5-6 d. So why was it that you arid Detective Lewis were out in the car that night?

L7 A. Because we work for the Town of Framingham Police, We have a detective cruiser we drive.

P47L8 q. So on this night what was the purpose of being out?

:L9-10 A, I couldn't tell you for sure our exact plan that night. I know we take detective cars and we go

out and drive around1

L18-20 Q. As far as you're getting dispatched to this, and I'm sorry if you answered this, but I don't

remember the answer, how is it that you personally get set to get sent to this car stop?

121-22 A. We heard Gutwill— I'm sorry— Detective Gutwills transmissions on the radio and we were

heading to that area.

In an interview with Detective Lewis, who was in the vehicle with Detective Godino at the time, he

stated that the purpose of being on the road that night was to work this tip, to act on the Information

received. From the time they received the information earlier in the evening till the time of the arrest

the sole purpose was to act on this tip. No other Investigations or assignments were carried out. He said

nothing specifically was planned for this evening till this came in.

In an interview with Detective Pisano, who was in the vehicle with Detective Godino at the time, he

stated that the goal of the evening was to find out where the car in question was coming from. When

asked what the purpose of being on the road that night was, was it for patrol, he stated no, that the

purpose was to wait for the car to come into Town,

In an interview with Sgt Pomales, who was Detective Godinos Supervisor on this night, if Detective

Godino had an assignment, he stated that everyone had art assignment that night, They were going to

stop the vehicle as a pre-textual stop on motor vehicle infractions.

In an interview with Detective Gutwill when asked if the Detectives had assignments that night he stated

they were not actual assignments, but ail the detectives involved discussed where and what they were

going to do to prepare for the vehicle to come into Town.

In an interview with Detective Godino to clarify this line of questions he stated that He was waiting for

information to come In from his Cl. He stated that they have buys they had planned, multiple things

come in and he didn't have one purpose that night when he came In,

Due to the circumstances of the evening and the interviews conducted, the testimony that Detective

Godino gave in Court about his explanation for being on the road that night was untruthful and

misleading.

The tine of questioning by Attorney Yeoman's also comes into question.


P51L13-16 Q. Correct. So there were three of you in the car and do you know if the—if Detective Pisano

had any contact with Officer Gutwill before you stopped—you went to this motor vehicle stop?

L17A. I don't believe he did.

LIS Q. You don't believe he did?

L19A. No

L20-21 Q, And your testimony is you don't recall if anyone else did in the car?

L22 A. No Sorry

In an interview with Detective Gutwill he states that he was in a meeting with all other Detectives

involved in this operation. He was aware of the operation and that they were aware of his location that

night. He had contact with the Detectives before they went on the road.

In an interview with Detective Lewis, who was in the vehicle with Detective Godino, he stated that he

knew Detective Gutwill was going to set up at the Mass Pike and spoke to him over either the radio or

the phone, and said that they were on the radio and would continue radio communications.

Detectives Pisano, Lewis and Sgt Pomales could not recall if Detective Gutwill was present in the Initial

meetings about the operation.

On this line of questioning it is not-sustained if Detective Godino had actual contact with Detective

Gutwill, or had knowledge of Detective Lewis conversation with Detective Gutwill.

On the first charge of Rule 1.02 Conduct Unbecoming a Police Officer is found to be Sustained due to

the following;

Due to Detective Godino's failure to answer direct questions in his testimony in a truthful manner, he

made the Court question the credibility of the Department and the Detectives involved in the case,

specifically Detective Gutwill.

Detective Godlnos misleading the Court into believing that Detective Gutwill was the primary Officer in

the investigation, not being forthcoming in why Detective Gutwill was in Town and his reluctance to

answer questions relating to why he was on the road that night made the Court look unfavorably on

Detective Gutwill.

It should be noted that this Officer believes that due to Testimony of Sgt Pomales and Detective

Godino during their respective interviews on this matter that the ongoing practice at the time of never

to give up a confidential informant played a significant role in this matter.


Detective Godino stated during his interview that they wiH not give up a CI, that's the way we do it.

Would rather dismiss cases than give up a CI. Basic policy is that we don't out informants at all, that's

their reputation. Stated that we don't give up names they can dismiss cases. That's how we've always

done it. That's how I was taught, that's how we do it. If it ever comes up we would rather dismiss the

case. We tell the Ci we will not give up your name. He explained that he does not know if there is a

policy about disclosure of a CI, but it is a practice. He said that Sgt Pom ales said that we don't give up

CI's, that's not what we do.

Sgt Pomales stated that he was not going to burn the CI, and that all Detectives knew they would not

burn this Cl.

i

It is with this knowledge that I believe that Detective Godino was guarded and untruthful in his answers

to the questions posed during the Court proceedings.

Respectfully submitted,

Sgt Christopher Montuori #240

:

i


Interview of Detective Joseph God i no

Interview date/time: November 13, 2015 1:35 PM interview concluded at 2:28 PM

Location: Chiefs Conference Room, 2^ Floor Framingham Police Station

Present during interview: Sgt Chris Montuori, Lt Victor Pereira, Detective Joseph Godino

Attorney Allan McDonald, Union Representative Officer Paul Duncan

interview was recorded

This is not a full transcript of the Interview:

Prior to any questions being asked handed out copies and read out loud the Framingham Police

Department Internal Investigation Rights Form, Detective Godino signed that he acknowledged and

understood this form..

Detective Godiro acknowledged that he remembered this case.

He states that he was working that night. Information was received by a CI, Detective Godlno's Ct.

Information received was that a boyfriend/girlfriend were possibly coming into Town sometime that

night, information received shortly after 7:00 PM. Upon receiving this Information he advised Sgt

Pomales, bis supervisor, stated that Pisano,Lewls, and Pomales that were aware of the initial

information that came in. Does not recall Detective Gutwill being present at meeting. Does not know

how Detective Gutwill was informed of the information. Does not recall Lt Tersoni being present at

meeting.

After meeting he had contact with the CI about updates what was going to happen. Information was

relayed to Sgt Pomales. Sgt Pomales gave directive to get as much information as you car get from the

CJ, Assignment for the night was trying to figure where they were going to come to, details of

information, of where to find vehicle, information was fluid.

As he received information he went to Perini building, once they got word where it was coming.

Doesn't recall relaying Info to Officer Brian Curtis or Detective Gutwill, only to Sgt Pomales.

He remembers that Detective Gutwill was in Town earlier during the day , and that night he knew he

was coming in. He knew that at some point he came in to help with us, didn't know what his purpose

was prior to that, Stated that Detective Gutwill had knowledge of investigation, but he did not know

who filled him in, does not remember him filling him in.

He stated that he met with ADA Dan Grunelli prior to the Motion, on the motion date, nothing came

up about CI, and did not give ADA Brunellj any information ahout the CI. When asked if he spoke with

any other ADA about this case he stated that he spoke with ADA Laura Montes, who was originally

assigned the case. He discussed, along with Detective Lewis, about the information that they had, that it


came from a Ci, vehicle was coming into Town to go to Hudson, that reports were written as a Detective

wanted them written. He stated that the first Motion was on an August date. That ADA Montes was

handling the first Motion. The Motion got cancelled and moved to the September date and that was the

first time that he met ADA Brunelli, his first interaction with him, prior to that he was aware that It was

Laura Montes who was handling the case. He stated that he relayed all information to ADA Montes

because she was handling the case at the time, but the case changed hands without his knowledge. He

stated that he believed that the information that he gave ADA Montes was transferred to ADA Brunelli.

He stated that his conversation with ADA Brunelli stated that he was going to ask him his observations

of the passenger, that's all that was said to him. He didn't bring up the fact of a CJ involvement because

he believed that it was already disclosed.

After arrest, the way that the motor vehicle stop happened was different than how they thought it was

going to happen. Reports were written based on traffic stop. Detectives Godi no, Lewis, Pisano, and

Gutwill met upstairs. Asked Detective Gutwill how he wanted reports written, how do you want to go

forward. Reports were to be based on motor vehicle infractions observed and passenger interactions.

Beileves Sgt Pomales and Lt Ruiz read the reports and supplements. States that other reports he has

written he writes In the report that Information was received through CI, Sometimes CI Information is

not Included.

:

He states that he typically relays information about CI to ADA on cases. Has contact with ADA's Office

on many cases. He states that he did have a conversation with ADA about this on this case.

Actual testimony of Motion was discussed.

Testimony about knowledge of gun in car, if information came from Detective Gutwill, if anyone told you

before you went up to them before that, answers' I don't recall that" Court cuts off answer.

Question was did anyone teil you there was a gun involved, answer was I don't recall. Asked to clarify

his response he stated that his understanding was that did anyone on scene tell you- Before he went up

to thenra.

Asked to clarify why he was called to scene, did he know if Detective Gutwill was In Town, how did he

know he was in Town. Response was that he didn't know why he was in Town.

Asked to clarify question by defense what he was doing in car, states that if we have stuff that's going

on we do it.

Question by attorney asked why he and Detective Lewis were in car that night, answer, we work for

Town of Framingham, we have cars we drive. He explains that he was waiting for information to come

in.

P47 LS Question by defense. Specific purpose for being out that njght , answer, couldn't tell you for sure

our exact plan that night I know we have detectives cars and we take them out and drive around.

Explanation was that they have buys they had planned; multiple things that come in didn't have one

purpose that nfght when he came in.


P47 LIS How is rt that you get sent to this car stop, heard Detectives Gutwill transmission. Headed in

that direction

P51 Defense asked who was in vehicle, couldn't retail without looking at report

P51L13-22 Defense askes if you don't recall anyone else In your car having contact with detective

Gutwill before motor vehicle stop, Answer no sorry

Explains that he thought she was asking If anyone called Detective Gut will before. If Plsano called him,

that he didn't call him.

During Motion Testimony thought Defense believed there was something more that Detective Gutwill

knew. Had feeling that they thought Gutwill had information.

After got off stand told ADA that ft was his information, not Gutwill, ADA said then we'll have to get you

back ori stand, Cleared It up right away.

Stated had a discussion with that ADA next day about outcome of case. ADA Brunelli and ADA Hegarty

spoke with him, to nolle pros case, not enough to convict all three suspects. Two may be dismissed

anyway, iudge may order to divulge CI. Female suspect not facing much time.

States that they will not give up CI, that's the way they do It, Would rather dismiss cases than give up

CL Basic policy is we don't out informants at ail, that's their reputation, States that Sgt Pomales already

told them that. We Don't give up names, they can dismiss cases. That's how we always have done it.

That's how I was taught, that's how we do it. if it ever comes up we would rather dismiss the case. We

tell them (CI) we will not give up your name.

States that ADA says they would rather dismiss than give up the CI if you don't want to give up name.

After telling ADA'S that ADA Montes had prior knowledge of case, he stated that ADA Bruneflr did

mention that he did remember a car from Fram Ingham going to Hudson to do robbery,

Question by Attorney McDonald to Detective Godlno about what was his assignment that night was

answered with didn't have specific assignment when he arrived at work. Had talked about doing

controlled buys.

Stated he had a brief conversation with ADA Brunei!! prior to Motion about observations of passenger

and why had her get out of vehicle and pat frisk. That was all he asked.

P44 L2 questions about did anyone tell you before you went up to them that there was gun answered

he thought it meant before he went up to them at scene walking up to them.

When he got cut off hy the Court; was going to say: at the time he was on scene walking up to the

vehicle? Formed as a question, was cut off couldn't clarify It with Court.\

!

If recalled if Plsano was in car,exp!afns answer with tewis was driving, forgot Pisano was behind him,

clarified by looking at report.


Questions about giving up CI's explained that he does not know if there is a policy about disclosure,

but is it a practice and that Sgt Pomales informed A DA that they would not give up this CI, ADA asked if

would disclose CI, said that Sgt Pom ales said that we don't give up CI's, that's not what we do.

When re -asked if Sgt Pomales gave him an assignment for night, doesn't remember specific plan,

didn't place them in certain area of Town. On stand-by with plan, Monitor information coming irr,

Full interview is on CD

Respectfully,

Sgt Chris Montuori

:


Interview of Detective Robert Lewis

Interview date/time: November 16, 2015, 1215 pm. Interview concluded at 1230pm

Location: Interview room 3rd Floor, Framingham Police Station

Present during interview: Sgt Chris Montuori, Detective Robert Lewis,

Union Representative Officer Paul Duncan

Interview was recorded

This is not a full transcript of the interview

;

After given time to review the reports on this case Detective Lewis states that he was working that

night and recalls the case. He acknowledges that there was a meeting on the third floor Detectives area

at some point in the night, he cannot recall the time but states that is was dark by then, and present in

the meeting were himself, Detective Godino, Pisano, and Sgt Pomales. He does not recall Detective

Gutwill present at that meeting. He does recall that Detective Gutwill was working that night and that

he was briefed about the situation, ( which turned into case 1503110), and was working with them on

this case. He does not recall Sgt Pomales giving any specific assignments to the Detectives after the

meeting, just a generalization of what and where they were going to be.

;

He stated the purpose of being on the road that night was to work this tip, the act on the information

received. They had received information from a confidential informant that was in contact with

Detective Godino. The information was that a gun was coming into Town that was to be used on a "drug

rip" / home invasion in Hudson. The suspects were to meet up with someone on Franklin St., at an

unknown time, driving a rental car (Toyota), with possibly three people.

He states that he was in a vehicle with Detectives Godino and Pisano. They were situated at CV's Bark

Mulch on Franklin St for quite some time waiting and watching if a vehicle matching make and model of

the description given by the CS went by. From the time they received the information from the CS to the

time of the arrest their sole purpose was to act on this tip. No other investigations or assignments were

carried out. He stated that they were going to look for a motor vehicle infraction in order to stop the

vehicle because they wanted to protect their informant.

He states that they, (Godino, Lewis) met with the same CI earlier in the evening about something

unrelated to this case. The same C! called later on, about this case, sometime after dinnertime. They

were all in the Detectives Office and Detective Godino received information about this case from the CI.

Nothing specifically was planned for this evening till this call came in. States that after call came in and

they got the Information, they informed Sgt Pomales about the situation and that they were going to try

to set up on the car. Sgt Pomales agreed, and said that he was going to make other notifications that

needed to be made. He states that Sgt Pomales called Detective Gutwill and Informed him of the


situation. Detective Lewis did riot know when Detective Gutwill got into Town, but did have contact with

him about what the information was that was given by Sgt Pomales and knew that he was going to set

up by the Mass Pike, He believes that he spoke to Detective Gutwill by phone and said to Detective

Gutwill that they were on the radio and they would continue radio communications. He stated that he

did not give information about this case to Detective Gutwill, that he got his Information from Sgt

Pomales.

!

When asked if he had any discussions about this Internal Investigation with Detective Godino or other

individuals he stated that he had not.

Full interview on CD

Respectfully,

Sgt Chris Montuori

i

::


fnteiview of Detective Chris Pisa no

interview took place on October 29, 2014 at approximately 1240 hrs.

Interview took place oil the third floor interview room

Interview was recorded with knowledge of Detective Pisano

This is not a full transcript of the interview

Before the interview took place I gave Detective Pisano copies of the reports on case 1503110 to

refresh his memory of the night In question.

Recorder turned on at approximately 1240 hrs,

I asked Detective Pisano if he remembered the case and the night in question. He stated that he did.

I asked if he recalled a meeting on this night, 04/27/15, reference the case In question, and who was in

the meeting. He stated that he did recall the meeting and that to the best of his memory recalled

Detective Joseph Godlno, Detective Robert Lewis, and Detective Sergeant Richard Pomales as to being

there, He did not recall if Detective Matthew Gutwill was present. He stated that the meeting was about

what may happen that night. That Detective Godino had a CI that was giving hfm information that some

kids were coming into Town to pick up one of his Cf's and one possibly had a firearm on them.

He stated that the goal for the evening was to find out where the car in question was coming from,

from the Ci's Information. He stated that Detective Godino had information that it was coming into

Town to pick up his CI. When asked what the purpose of being on the road that night was, was it for

patrol, he stated no that the purpose was to wait for the car to come into Town, to find out which way It

was coming in.

When I asked what the basis was for them being on patrol that night was, were they just waiting for

the car in question to show up, he answered yes.

When asked if he had knowledge if the car was coming Into Town he answered yes.

When asked if he had knowledge if the gun was in the car from the CI he answered yes.

When asked if he got this information from Detective Godino, who in turn got it from his CI, ha

answered yes.

Interview was concluded at 1246.

Recorder was turned off at this time.


I asked Detective Pisa no after the recording was turned off If Detective Godino or anyone else had

spoken to him about this Inquiry, about what it was about, and he stated no, he just heard about it

through rumors in the Department,


Respectfully,

Sgt Chris Montuort

:


Interview of Sgt Richard Pomaies

interview date/time: November 03, 2015, 4:10 PM, Interview concluded at 4 :36PM

Location: interview room 3fd floor, Fram Ingham Police Station

Present during interview: Sgt Chris Montuori, Lt Victor Pereira, Sgt Richard Pomaies

Union Representative Sgt Scott Brown

Interview was recorded

This Is not a full transcript of the interview

Sgt Pomaies acknowledged that he re members the case in question, 1503110. He was working that

night and was the supervisor of the Narcotics Bureau, Sgt Pomaies stated that there were several quick

littte meetings on this evening about this case. A phone call was received by Detective Godino about a

firearm that was coming into Town, going to another Town with several individuals involved. The call

came from a CI. Sgt Pomaies believes that he was one of the last to get the information. Detective Lewis,

Detective Pisa no, and he believes that Detective Gutwill knew of the information before be did.

He sent Detectives out on road and then made the appropriate notifications to the Commanding

Officer of the Patrol Division, the Natick PO, and the Mass State Police about the ongoing investigation.

He stated that they had general information that the car was a rental Toyota Prius, several individuals

in vehicle picking up individual in franklin St, and going to Hudson to hit a drug target. Alf information

came from Detective Godino through his CI,

;Detectives Lewis, Gutwill, Plsano reached out Sgt Pomaies about information received. Information

changed as Detectives were in the field, to different location. Detective Gutwill set up by Exit 13,{Mass

Pike),:

Sgt Pomaies stated that Detectives were given assignments, but situation was changing, not sure of

travel route, Sgt Pomaies states that Detective Gutwill was working with them, was involved in the

operation and Detective Godino was aware he was working with them. He, Detective Gutwill, was aware

of situation before Sgt Pomaies was. Sgt Pomaies did not know when Detective Gutwill arrived in Town,

wasn't sure how he was to be in Station that night. No information came from Detective Gotwiil, all was

from Detective Godino through his CL

When asked about testimony that Detective Godino gave about knowing if Detective Gutwill was In

Town, Sgt Pomaies stated that Detective Godino knew he was working on this operation, but did not

know if he was working for them before this operation this night, He did not know how Detective

Gutwiil came to be in Town, didn't know if he was called or if he was just passing through.


When asked of Detective Godino had an assignment that night he stated that everyone had an

assignment. That stop was going to be a pre-textual stop as long as there was a motor vehicle violation.

Sgt Pomales stated that on that night there was discussion on the room about how to write report not

putting CI in report. Detective Gutwiil told to them to write reports based on motor vehicle infractions

that he witnessed. He says it is typical that reports are written this way, that CI information not be

included in reports, Sgt Pomales was not on scene at time of arrest, he showed op near the end.

Sgt Pomales stated that it is typical to notify ADA about involvement of CI.

Says that they were not going to burn CI, and all Detectives knew that they would not burn this CI due

to other cases that it is currently involved in. He did not tell any Detectives to leave DA's Office out of

loop with knowledge of CI.

Sgt Pomales states that DA's Office should have been made aware of CI In case, When asked if Detective

Godino should have told ADA about CI he says yes.


Respectfully,

Sgt Chris Montuori

i

;

;

:

:

;


:

On October 07, 2015 at approximately 1145 hrs I was in the Framingham Juvenile Courthouse for Clerk

Magistrate hearings when I was approached by an individual who identified himself as Derrik Pannesi.

Mr Pannesi was one of three individuals arrested on case 1503110.

Mr Pannesi went on about how he wanted to thank Officer Brian Curtis for his truthful testimony on

the stand for the case. He went on to say that Detective Gut wiM was" fucking lying" in his report and

that he, Detective Gutwill, never knew that there was a gun in the car. He said he wanted to thank

Detective Godino for telling the truth when he said he couldn't remember about the tail, or If he knew if

a gun was there. He said that his testimony really saved him.

He declined further to elaborate on his statements, just that he was saved by the testimony given.

Respectfully,

5gt Chris Montuori


Interview ofLt Blaise Tersoni

Interview date/time: October 05, 2015 12:15 PM

Location: Detective Bureau Commanders Office, 3 Floor

Present during interview: Sgt Chris Montuori, Lt Blaise Tersoni

Interview was not recorded

Lt Tersoni does not recall much about the evening of April 27, 2015. He was working the Day shift and

his shift ended at 1610 hrs. He came Into a meeting on the third floor and remembers that it was being

discussed that a vehicle was coming into Town to meet up with a CS that was then going to Hudson Ma.

to do a home Invasion, He was In meeting for short time had to leave by 1630 hrs. Was not present for

the nights investigation and stop of vehicle.

He remembers that he told Detective Gutwill to call the Hudson Police Department and advise them of

the situation.

Lt Tersoni pulled up two emails dated April 20, 2015 relating to this incident. See attached documents.

The first was from Richard Pomales which in part states " Case #1503110 is reference info Detective

Godino received"..."Info was that they were en route to Hudson to rob a drug dealer Igor Campos"

"Pre -Text legit stop made by Officer Curtis.,

" We had to reschedule suspect interview for this evening Due to credible info reference above

mentioned gun arrest".

Second email was dated April 28 2015 from Matthew Gutwill stating that an e-Trace was done on gun by

ATT. And will give to Joe when comes in.

Interview completed.

Respectfully,

Sgt Chris Montuori


Interview of Assistant United States Attorney^ former Framingham ADA) Laura Montes

Interview Date/time: November 16, 2015, 12:49PM, Interview concluded at 1:07PM

Location: By telephone, Stationed in Puerto Rico

Present during interview: Sgt Chris Montuori, AUSA Laura Montes


On Monday, November 16, 2015 at approximately 1215 pm i spoke with Assistant United States

Attorney Laura Montes, former Assistant District Attorney assigned to the Framingham District

Attorney's Office, whose assignment is now in Puerto Rico. Attorney Montes was the ADA that was

assigned the Arraignment of case 1505110 on April 28, 2015.

She stated that on 4/28/2015, during the arraignment of this case, Defense Attorney Helwig was

agitated and demanded that there was more to the case that what was in the report. She said that she

would look into it. ADA Montes was later formally assigned the case and reached out to Detectives Matt

Gutwill, Joseph Godino, and Robert Lewis. She stated that she spoke on the phone with Detective

Gutwill about the case and he explained to her that there was more to the case that just a motor vehicle

stop. They, (Detectives) knew that the suspects were coming into Town and were going to commit some

sort of assault/home invasion. ADA Montes was looking for any other reports that were going to be

generated. ADA Montes also stated that she spoke with both Detective Godirio and Detective Lewis In

Court one day about the case. She was told that they were working with a CS and that it had knowledge

that a gun was coming into Town and was going to be used in some sort of assault in Hudson, They were

following up on that tip from the CS. She stated that she spoke with Detective Godino twice about the

case. The second time was when they had to reschedule the Motion due to scheduling conflicts. During

this second conversation it was also discussed about the CS, the knowledge about the gun coming into

Town, and the possibility of an armed assault taking place in Hudson, she asked if any other reports

were going to be generated, ADA Montes mentioned the possibility of other circumstances to the case

to Attorney Helwig during the pre-trial hearing or the compliance and election stage.

During the time that this case was going to be scheduled for Motions ADA Montes was In the process

of leaving the District Attorney's Office and getting assigned to the United Stated Attorney's Office in

Puerto Rico. ADA Montes was taken off of the case and it was to be re-assigned to another ADA. The

case file was given to ADA Daniei Brunelli. ADA Montes states that she remembers telling ADA Brunelli

that he needs to follow up on this because there was more to the case than the just the motor vehicle

stop. That there was a CS involved. That they,[ Detectives) knew about the gun and it was going to be

used in another crime. She was not sure if she put it in the case notes because the file was already

removed from her office and given the ADA Brunelli. ADA Montes stated that the information was

I


verbally given to ADA Brunelii during a screened meeting about cases. She remembers this because she

stated that this case was being tracked because it was a gun case.

Attorney Montes has no access to the case file now, or to any of her emails generated about the case.

Respectfully,

Sgt Chris Montuori

:

|


Per your request in writing and your refusal to take a verbal complaint I am notifying you the following,

On September 22, 2015 upon arriving at Framingham District Court to give testimony on the Pannisi and

Trinadad case I was advised of the following,

From the DA I was told Detective Godino and Officer Curtis have already given testimony and if this case

went any further there I a likely chance that the presiding Judge on this case would make a ruling that

the Officers were less then truthful. ;

I was told the issue was over information i had from an informant.

f

I was told Detective Godino called the DA on the morning of the 22nd and asked the DA to drop the case

Upon my objection that we were dismissing a gun case case the Da advised me that my testimony will

come into question based on the previous testimony. The DA advised me that they were dismissing the

case to protect myself from the court and a potential ruling that i perjured myself.

Based on the comments by the Da I had Sgt Montourl join myself and the two Da's in this discussion.

We both learned that Detective Godino and Officer Curtis met with the DA prior to testimony and at no

time did Detective Godino tell the DA that an Informant was the source of the information that this

particular vehicle was coming into town with a gun. The DA stated that only after Office Curtis testimony

did the Da get a sense that there was more to this case then what was presented to them.

:

Upon the case being dismissed I requested the court testimony of Godino and Curtis, From this

testimony I learned that Detective Godino did not inform the court that he was told a gun was in the car.

Godino stated 11 1 don't recall" when asked if anyone told him a gun was in the car . Detective Godino

continued with his testimony including that he just arrived to assist in a stop and not revealing that this

was a ongoing operation.

Detective Godlno's testimony was less then truthful and in an attempt to protect a confidential

informant his testimony misted the court to believe the source of the information came from myself.

In an attempt to protect a confidential informant Detective Godino's did great harm to my reputation

and credibility and allowed a motion to suppress a stop to turn into a trial of my actions and my

truthfulness.

As you are aware that anytime as a police officer you make a allegation against another police officer it's

difficult. The rumors and the deflection and discredit of the person making the allegations is common in

a police environment is common and in this case it Is not different.

The testimony by Detective Godino in this case is clearly less then truthful and brings to question the

actions of the drug unit in its current form.

i

;


Interview of Detective Matthew Gutwill

Interview date/time: October 05, Z015, 0915 hrs

Location; Interview Room #1, 3,!l Floor

Present during interview: Sgt Chris Montuori, Detective Matthew Gutwill


On September 29, 2015 I received an email from Detective Matthew Gutwill reference a verbal

complaint that he had made to Deputy Chief Kevin Slattery. The attached complaint was concerning

testimony given to the Court on a motion date on case 1503110.

Detective GutwIHs written complaint was reviewed and a meeting was set up for an interview.

On October 5, 2015 at 0915 hrs I met with Detective Gutwill in Interview room # 1. The interview was

not recorded.

I asked Detective Gutwill if he could give me some background on the case which would explain his

concerns with Detective Godinos testimony before the Court.

Detective Gutwill stated that on April 27, 2015, the day the case in question occurred that there was a

meeting of several ranking Officers and Detectives on the third fioor Detective Bureau. Present during

this meeting were Lt Blaise Tersoni, Sgt Richard Pomales, Detective Robert Lewis, Detective Joseph

Godino, and Detective Chris Pisano. The meeting was about the possibility of two individuals that were

going to be headed to Hudson Ma. to attempt a home invasion. The individuals were in possession of a

firearm. They were going to rob a drug dealer. This information came from an informant of Detective

Godino. Detective Godino gave a description of the vehicle that they were to be driving. Detective

Gutwill stated that he had never spoken to the C5 about the information, nor was given any information

from the C5- Detective Gutwill stated that he was unaware of any of aspect of this investigation until he

was informed during this meeting.

Upon receiving this information Detective Gutwill stated that he called the Hudson Police Department

to inform them of the possibility of this occurring.

Detective Gutwill stated that information was received by Detective Godino from his cs that the

vehicle was going to be coming from the Mass Pike to meet the CS and pick it up to attempt the home

invasion,

I


This meeting and Detective Godlnos knowledge of the information from his CS, is the basis for

Detective Gutwills com plaint about Detective Godinos testimony.

Detective Gutwili states in his written complaint that several passages in the transcript come Into

question. Specifically testimony contained on pages 44 through 51.

In the transcript Defense Attorney Helwig, speaking of the information that there was a gun in the car

and that he got that information from Detective Gutwili and Go di no replying that he does not recall was

asked the question "Did anyone tell you that before you went up to them?"(p44 1.2) Gocfinos reply "I do

not recall that."(P44 L3)

When asked how he knew Detective Gutwili was going to be in Town his reply was "I forgot how [

knew,.."(P4S L4)

Answers to questions about why he was on patrol that night were answered with "Because we work for

the town of Framingham Police. We have a detective cruiser we drive." {P46 L7-&).

Asked what was the purpose of being out on this night Detective Godino answered "I couldn't telf you

for sure our exact plan that night. I know we take detective cars and we go out and drive around" [P47

L9-10).

Asked several question about why Detective Gutwili was in Town and stopping cars, answers were given

as to that he didn't know he was here or why he was stopping a vehicle. (1*48,49,50):

Asked by Defense Attorney Yearrtans if he was with Detective Lewis and Pisa no In his vehicle prior to the

stop Detective Godino stated "That could be true. J don't recall" fP51 L4).

Asked by Yea mans " So there were three of you in the car and do you know if the—if Detective Pisa no

had any contact with Officer Gutwili before you stopped—you went to this motor vehicle stop?" fP51

1.13,14, 15, IS)

Godino: "I don't believe he did" (P5l L17)

Yearn a ns: "You don't believe he did?" (P51 L ISJ

Godino: "No" [P51 L19)

Yeamans; "And your testimony is you don't recall if anyone else did in the car?" [P51 L20-21)

Godino: "No. Sorry" (P51 L 22)

One of Detective Gutwiit concerns is that this testimony and other no cited but in the transcript, paints

his as the one who had the CS, the one who initiated this investigation, and the one who was in charge

of this operation when in fact it was Detective Godino and his CS. Detective Gutwili is concerned about


his reputation within the Court system, and his concern that the Court and Defense thinks he may have

perjured himself.

Detective GutwiH states In his complaint that "Godinos testimony was less than truthfui and In an

attempt to protect a confidential informant his testimony misled the Court to believe the source of the

information came from myself."

On November 19, 2015 at approximately 9:45AM I spoke with Detective Gutwill at the Framingham

Courthouse. I asked him what time he was notified of this investigation ( 1503110) and he stated that he

was called by a supervisor, he believes that it was Lt Tersoni, sometime before 5:00 PM, it could have

been as early as 3:00 PM. He was asked to come in to the Station to assist the Detectives on duty at the

time. The Supervisor explained to him what they knew at the time and he drove to the Police Station to

assist. He stated that there were no clear assignments given by a Supervisor as to where they were

going to set up for the night. The discussion on where to position themselves was between the

Detectives who were involved with the investigation.

Respectfully,

Sgt Chris Montuorf


interview of ADA Daniel Brunei!! and ADA Margaret Hegarty

Interview date; October 06, 2015

Location; Framingbam District Courthouse

Present during interview: Sgt Chris Morttuori, ADA Daniel Brunellf, ADA Margaret Hegarty


On Tuesday October 06, 2015 t interviewed Assistant District Attorney Daniel Brunelli and his

Supervisor Assistant District Attorney Margaret Hegarty - The interview took place at the Framingbam

District Courthouse. The interview was in reference to a motion to dismiss on Framingbam case

1503110. The interview was not recorded.

The initial motion date took place on September 01, 2015. Detectives Curtis and Godino were present

with Detective Matt Gutwili unavailable. The Motion was spilt so Detective Gutwlli could testify on

September 22, 2015. ADA Brunei!! was the Prosecutor for the Commonwealth and Attorney Helwig and

Attorney Yea mans for the Defense.

On September 01, 2015 ADA Brunelli bad a pre-motion conference with Detectives Curtis and Godino

reference the case. The Motion was to focus on the suppression of the stop and the exit order and pat

frisk of defendant Yartaa Trinidad and the discovery of a firearm. During this pre -motion conference it

was never brought up or any information divuiged to ADA Brunelli that Detective Godino had a CSthat

had informed him about a vehicle coming into Town which contained a firearm. ADA Brunelli stated he

had no reason to believe anything different that this was just a motor vehicle stop because there was no

reference to any prior knowledge in any submitted Police report on the case. ADA Brunelli stated that

two weeks prior to the motion Defense council asked for a list of witnesses and other discovery to be

provided, ADA Brunelli pulled all names from submitted reports, not knowing there was a CS involved

for none was noted-

During the Motion (Sept 01) ADA Brunelli stated that he only learned during cross-examination by

Attorney Helwig on Officer Curtis that Officers had knowledge that a firearm may be In the vehicle.

Detective Curtis during cross-examination stated that Detective Gutwili called him and advised his that a

firearm was in the vehicle. ADA Brunelli stated that at this time he thought that Detective Gutwili had

information from a CS about the firearm. He thought that Detective Godino just showed up because he

heard the call come over the radio. ADA Brunei!!, along with the line of questions being posed by

Attorney Helwig, assumed to believe that the stop was due to Detective Gutwills prior knowledge from a

CS.

I


The motion proceeded with direct and cross examination of Detective Godino. ADA Brunelli stated

that at no time did Detective Godino mention that he had any prior knowledge of a firearm possibly

being in the vehicle. ADA Brunelli says Detective Godinos answers were either vague or In the negative

about any knowledge of a firearm being in the vehicle prior to the stop.

The Motion ended and ADA Brunelli spoke with Detective Godino, ADA Brunelli during this time still

believed that it was Detective Gutwills CS that supplied information about the vehicle and the firearm in

the vehicle. ADA Brunelli asked Detective what was going on, there was nothing in arty report or

supplement about any prior knowledge or pne-text for the stop. He stated that Detective Godino said he

received no information from Detective Gutwiil, that he, (Detective Godino), had general information

from a CS of the possibility of a non descript Toyota in the area with a firearm. ADA Brunelli stated that

Detective Godino was very hesitant to burn his CS because it was still working with It.

!

ADA Brunelli stated that Detective Godino said that he thought that the stop was good based on the

motor vehicle infractions so he didn't mention the CS.

The second half of the Motion was to take place on September 22, 2015 with Detective Gutwill, ADA

Brunelli, with new information about a CS of Detective Godino's was going to recall Detective Godino

back to put. him on the stand to try to clear up his testimony about the stop.

Prior to this Motion date ADA Hegarty met with ADA Alice Casey and DA Michael Peigro to discuss the

viability of the case now that new information had been discovered about Detective Godinos knowledge

of a CS and the disclosure of prior knowledge that a firearm was in the vehicle, and Detective Godinos

reluctance to disclose the CS due to on-going work and safety issues for- the CS.

The ADA's believed that a new motion could backfire with Detective Godino on the stand and expose

the identity of his CS.

A decision was made to nolle prosequi the case against the all defendants due to Detective Godinos

lack of transparency about his knowledge of the pre-text for the stop and the identity of the CS coming

out in the Motion and with Detective Godinos reluctance to expose his CS to possible discovery and fear

for the CS safety.

On September 22 the case was nolle prossed before the second half of the Motion began.

ADA's Hegarty and Brunelli stated that Detective Gutwill approached them in the hallway concerned

about the status of the case and confused about the reason for the nolle prosequi. The situation was

explained to him.

ADA Brunelli and Hegarty stated that had they had prior knowledge of the CS, and the knowledge of

the pre text for the stop then they would have proceeded with the Motion in a whole different fashion,

that there are correct avenues to withholding an Identity of a CS. They both believed that the case

would have continued with a different decision and would not have ended the way it did.


ADA Hegarty stated that she believed that because of the outcome of this Motion that there may be

ongoing problems with any testimony from any Detective investigation, due to the fact that the defense

attorneys all pass information along to each other and that the omission of the fact that there was a CS

involved that It was not included in any Police report, and was kept hidden, She says that it could open a

door for the Defense to explore further omissions in investigations.

In a follow-up with ADA Hegarty on November 16, 2015 about any notes in the case file from ADA

Montes to ADA Brunelli about conversations between the DA's Office and Detective Godino, Gutwill, or

Lewis about the Involvement of a CI in the case, ADA Hegarty stated that she had gone through the file

and did not see anything written about CI involvement,

Respectfully,

Sgt Chris Montuorl


FRAMINGHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT

INTERNAL INVESTIGATION RIGHTS FORM

Today's date is: \N\\ M 1.0 \ 5 l-AThe time Is;

This interview is being conducted as part of an internal investigation of alleged misconduct or, l he part oF a member of the

Frsmingharn Police Department. This interview is being conducted at the Framingham Police Department, Police Chiefs

Conference Room.

Names of officers conducting interview: Sergeant Christopher Montuorr and Lieutenant VictoT Pereira

Name of the individual being interviewed: Detective Joseph Godino

IL is my duty to inform you that this interview is an element of an official Departmental investigation. This investigation is

being conducted at the direction and u rider the authority of the Chief of Police. . ,

The investigation at issue deals with an allegation of misconduct which you were alleged to have committed while you were

a member of the Department. As such, this investigation may resell In disciplinary action up to and Including termination.

Therefore, at your request, you may have legal counsel or union representation present during this interview,

You are required to answer air questions directed to you during this interview. Vol1 shall answer ail questions fully,

truthfully, and to the best of your knowledge. You will be asked specific questions concerning certain allegations made

against you or the principal subject of the investigation. Questioning will be specifically related to your job performance

and/or your fitness to continue to serve as a member of this Department. Except as provided below, if you revise to answer

questions, you are subject Lo disciplinary action, up to and including termination, for such refusal to answer.

The 51'1 Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights bothprohibit self-incrimination. Therefore, absent a grant of transactional immunity, you have a right to remain siient about

conduct or behavior that would tend to incriminate you in a criminal matter. This must be done on a question by question

hasis and, absent a grant of transactional immunity, invocation of this right wiii not lead to disciplinary action,

£2Have you been provided with a Notice of Investigation?

Do you have any questions prior to this interview?

To the Attorney or Union Representative: Your client is about to be questioned regardinghf

the Department. He or she is required to answer these questions fuiiy, truthfully, and to the best of his/her knowledge, if

you, as legal representative, advise your client not to answEr a question, then he or she may be subject to disciplinary

action up tD and including termination of employment. At any time, you may advise your client not to answer questions,

and this will be rioted in the official record. You wiir not be allowed to ask your client any ques Lions during the actual

interview. You will be given an opportunity at the end of the questioning to ask your client to clarify ar qualify any answers

to the questions asked.

ictions as 3 member of;

:

JOSEPH (qiocltOb _, on this day of November, 2015, acknowledge andL understand

my rights and obligations regarding this investigatory interview.

3 1 1 \\ j /r^(j [Signature]/] [PSNJ (DATE)


Chris S, Montuori

Brian X. Slmoneau

Friday, November 13, 2015 9:55 AM

Chris 5, Montuori; Victor C. Pereira

Fwd: Detective Godino

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

For today's interview.

Original message

From: Alan McDonald <Lnii-ri.ni.iki <: :i insslahorlawvers.com>

Date: 10/15/2015 21:51 (GMT-05:00)

To: "Brian X. Simoneau" <l^>fiTramiiigl-iamiTja.£iov>

Cc: pkduncan pkduncan <nkdnnoan u KnMiisp.com>. iuod 1 11 u aniLiil.com

Subject: Detective Godino

Brian,

I have now had a chance to read the transcript from the hearing over whieh the complaint about Detective

Godino's testimony has been made. For several reasons, 1 do not believe that the complaint is a valid one, or

even one that deserves investigation. First, the questions posed to him were poorly framed and not sufficiently

precise to require him to divulge the information concerning the CI. Rather, they were general in nature and

allowed for generalized answers. Second, the question about whether he had prior knowledge of a gun was

ambiguous over whether the the questioner sought information from the events of the night in question or from

prior events. When Detective Godino attempted to clarify the ambiguity, the judge cut him off and the

ambiguity was never resolved. Third, ADA Brunelli and his supervisor, ADA Hegarty, both stated on more

than one occasion that Detective Godino handled the questioning appropriately. Fourth, after his testimony,

Detective Godino again sought advice from ADA Brunelli over whether further information was desirable

concerning knowledge about the presence of a weapon in the vehicle. ADA Brunelli said he might want Officer

Godino to be recalled and Detective Godino was willing to be recalled. However, the DA's office decided that

further testimony was not needed in light of the decision on disposition of the cases. Fifth, following the

arrests, Detective Godino questioned how the reports were to be written by Detective Gutwell under the

circumstances of the case. Detective Gulweel stated that he would write that he caused the stop to be made due

to several motor vehicle violations rather then because ofany advance knowledge of a weapon in the

vehicle. Sergeant Pomales approved that approach. That decision placed Detective Godino in a difficult

position which he handled by answering the questions asked guardedly, but honestly, given the imprecision of

the questioning. To now investigate him for alleged perjury seems most unfair and unwarranted.

For the reasons stated above, Union requests that the notice of investigation be withdrawn and the matter closed

without any further action.

Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss tliis further.

I

Regards,l


Alan

Alan J. McDonald

McDonald Lamond Canzoneri

352 Turnpike Road, Suite 310

Southborough, MA 0 1 772- 1 756

Ph: 508 485-6600

Fx: 508 485-4477

E-mail: amcdonald@ m as si aborl awvers com

THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT

IS ADDRESSED. IT MAY CONTAIN INFORMA TION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND

EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW.

If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution,

copying or use of this document is strictly prohibited. If you have

received this communication in error, please notify me immediately at

the e-mail address above and delete all copies of this communication.

;

Please be advised that the Massachusetts Secretary of State considers e-mail to be a public record, and therefore

subject to public access under the Massachusetts Public Records Law,M.G.L. c, 66 § 10.

"This electronic message and any files attached hereto could contain confidential or privileged information from

the Framingham Police Department, This information is intended to be for the use of the individuals or entities

to whom it is addressed only, Ifyou arc not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying,

distribution or use of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this

transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of this message."

2



NOTICE OF INTERNAL INVESTIGATION

L ''

Detective Joseph GodlnoTO;

Chief Kenneth M. Ferguson,FROM:

Notice of InvestigationRE;

DATE:

I NV£5TI GATOR: Sergeant Christopher Mo Fituori

Detective Goditio:

I am writing to inform you that an official internal investigation will be conducted regarding question of

whether or not you were untruthful on September 1, 2015 while testifying in Framingham District Court in the

case of Commonwealth v. Yaritza Trinidad, Docket Mo,: 1549-CR-001276, FPD Case No,: 1503110. If true, and

proven by a preponderance of the evidence, at minimum, your conduct violates the following:

1 . Frami ngham Pol ice Dc pa rtmo nt Ru le 1 , 02 Cond u ct U nbecom ing a F ra m I ng ha m Police Officer

Employees shall not commit any specific actor acts of improper, unlawful, disorderly or intemperate

conduct, whether on or off duty, which reflect(s) discredit or refiect(s) unfavorably upon the officer,upon other employees or upon the police department. Employees shall Conduct themselves at all

times, both on and off duty, in such a manner as to reflect most favorably on the department and its

members.

2. Framingham Police Department Rule 4,7 Truthfulness

Employees shall speak the truth at all times when on duty or when discussing a matter arising out of

or related to the officers duties or the operation, organization or business of the department. In cases

in which an officer is not allowed by the regulations of the department to divulge facts within his orher knowledge, the officer will decline to speak on the subject.

1


FRAMING HAM POLICE DEPARTMENTHE


J

Other areas of Inquiry may develop as the investigation progresses. Pending a final resolution of this matter,you are hereby directed NOT to discuss this matter with anyone other than personnel assigned to investigate

the matter, your union officials, or your attorney. You are specifically directed NOT to discuss this matter or theresulting investigation with any witness, potential witness, or with any other employees of the Department.

You are further directed NOT to contact or cause any alleged vfctlmfc), complainants), an/or witness(es), to be

contacted through any design of your own. This Includes personal, electronic, telephonic, or third party contact

of any nature relating to the above-described matter of the investigation thereof. Vou are hereby informed that

failure to comply with any part of this written order will result in your being subjected to disciplinary action up

to and including termination.

Although the Town does not suggest that you have done so or would do so, your attention Is directed to G,L. c.

149 % 185, which generally prohibits, in part, any retaliation against persons who may make disclosures ofcertain matters to supervisors and other appropriate Town representatives. Other laws and policies would

similarly prohibit any retaliatory actions or Interference with the prosecution of a criminal case. Any retaliatory

action may subject the person engaging in such action to disciplinary action which may include a written

reprimand, unpaid suspension, or termination of employment, even if the investigation ultimately shows that

the allegations sent forth in this letter did not occur.

Final iy, your attention is directed to Framingham Police Department Rule 7.10, Cooperation with Investigations.

This Rule provides as follows:

Employees shall answer questions truthfully, respond to lawful orders, and render material and relevant

statements, in an internal department investigation when such orders, questions and statements are directlyrelated to job responsibilities orfitness for duty. Nothing in the Section shall require any employee to waive any

Federal or State constitutional rights, Including the right not to give a compelled statement as set out in Carney

v, Springfield and Bagtioni v. Salem or to waive the right to Union representation and representation by counsel,

I have assigned Sergeant Christophers. Montuori to conduct this Investigation, You Will be notified of the

outcome of this investigation upon its completion. Please contact Sgt. Montuori if you have any questions.

i. Detective Joseph Godino, acknowledge receipt of this Notice of Investigation and I understand the above

listed rights and obligations.

311(DATF){Signature) (PSN)

1A-2JQ1S

2


Please see transcript for the following

Page 44

Line 2,3,8, 9, 10,25,

Page 45

Line 1,2,3,4, 16,17,18,19,25

Page 46

Line 5,6,7,8

Page 47

Line 8,9,10,18,19,20,21,22,23,

Page 48

Line 17,18,19

Page 49

Line 25

COURTS COMMENTS PAGE 50

Line 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12

Page 51

Line 1,2, 3,4, 13,14,15, 16,17, 18,19


iri§|Town of Framingham

MASSACHUSETTS

Office of the Town Counsel

Christopher J. Petrini

Town Counsel

Petrini &. Associates, P.C,

iiifp@peti'inilaw.com

372 Union Avenue • Framingham, MA 01702

{508) 665-4310 Facsimile (508) 665-4313

www.petrinilaw.com

February 1 6, 20 1 6

BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

rajg@fraS3 snghamma.govAND FIRST CLASS MAIL

Detective Matthew J. Gutwill

16 Wadsworth Road

Ashland, MA 0 1 72 1 -25 1 8

Detective Gutwill:

I understand that you are alleging that your planned rotation from the DEA Taskforce is

retaliatory in response to your having complained that TramIngham Police Detective Joseph

Godino was untruthful on September 1 . 2015 while testifying in Framingham District Court in

the case o 1' Commonwealth v. Yaritza Trinidad. Docket No.: 1549-CR-001276, FPD Case No.;

1503110.

1 further understand that during a telephone conversation with Chief Ferguson on Friday,

February 5, 2016, you alleged that Deputy Chief Kevin S lattery was untruthful in the case of

Commonwealth v, Scott Brown. Middlesex Superior Court Docket No. M1CR2010-106, and that

Deputy Chief Ron Brandolini was recorded on a federal wiretap, implying that he was involved

in wrongdoing. Assumedly this wiretap was conducted in the case of USA v, Karapet

DAianikvan. Docket No.: l:llcr10195RWZ8.

During that same conversation you stated that you would bo filing a complaint with Lhe

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MC'AD) on Monday, February 8th and thatyou were going to "turn the place upside down " which seems to mean that you plan on initiating

substantial internal controversy within the Police Department.

Finally, you are claiming that you are unable to work in the Police Department's

Detective Bureau and have been harassed bee a use 'of the above-referenced complaint which you

made against Detective Godino.

The T own of Framingham takes the aforementioned allegations seriously and an

experienced independent outside investigator, retained by the Town's Human Resources

- Dedicated to excellence in public service -


February 16, 2016

Page 2

Department, will be investigating tbem. Your complaint and the investigation will be keptconfidential to the extent possible, and any retaliation against you as a result of your complaint

will not be tolerated. If you feel you are being retaliated against, you should immediately report

that to your chain of command and the Town's Human Resources Department.

Please be advised that Deputy Chief Slattcry has complained, to the Town's Human

Resources Department, that your allegations against him constitute workplace harassment and

that his complaint will be investigated.

Framingham I Iuman Resources Director Dolores Hamilton will be contacting you in the

near future regarding the aforementioned investigation. In the meantime, please direct any-

further communications regarding this matter to Ms, Hamilton. If you are represented by-

counsel, please provide your attorney's contact information so that the Town's legal

representatives may communicate with him or her.

Sincerely,

Christopher J. Petrini,Town Counsel

2&I6.&2. 10 Town Cornel Letter to M Gufavm {606«(f9),doc


Law Offices of James W. Simpson, Jr, P.C.

100 Concord Street, Suite 3b

Framingham, MA 01702

1-508-872-0002

1-508-464-0464 (fax)

[email protected]

vvww.simpsonlawoffices.com

February 25, 2016

Christopher Petrini, Esq.

Petrini & Associates, P.C,

372 Union Avenue

Framingham, MA 01702

RE: Detective Matthew Gutwill

Dear Counsel:

Please be advised that this office has been retained to represent Detective Matthew

Gutwill with respect to his ongoing employment issues with the Town of Framingham Police

Department, As you know, Detective Gutwill filed a written complaint against a fellow officer

(Godino) alleging that said officer may have been misleading or untruthful during portions of his

testimony before the Framingham District Court in the matter of Commonwealth v. Trinidad.

Chief Ferguson assigned a Sergeant to conduct an internal affairs investigation into the

complaint. This Sergeant after completing his investigation, recommended that the allegations

be sustained against the officer.

Apparently, unhappy with the results of the investigation, Chief Ferguson assigned yet

another officer (with little or no internal affairs or investigatory experience) to conduct a review

of the Sergeant's findings. Not surprisingly, this officer overruled the findings of the Sergeant

and determined that no misconduct had taken place. Chief Ferguson then on January 8, 2016

advised Detective Gutwill that his complaint was unfounded. Chief Ferguson advised Detective

Gutwill that the officer had made a "mistake of the heart" and was "trying to do the right thing"

(protect the identity of a confidential informant) or words to that effect and that he would assign

the officer to retraining.

The Chiefs actions and determination that Detective Gutwill's complaint was unfounded

lack any rational basis. There was significant evidence to support Detective Gutwill's charges

and the Department's own internal affairs investigator determined as such. To excuse evasive,

misleading and potentially untruthful testimony by a police officer while testifying before the

Court under the rationale that it is permissible in order to protect confidential informants, sets a

dangerous precedent and is plainly wrong.


During the internal affairs investigation, it appears that Detective Godino denied have any

conversations or contact with Detective Gutwill prior to the stop. Yet, Detective Gutwill when

interviewed by internal affairs, indicated that he had both telephone conversations and text

message with Detective Godino on the day of the arrest. He offered to provide copies of his cell

phone records and text records which indicated several phone calls and text messages with

Detective Godino on the day in question. There can be no explanation or rationalization for

Detective Godino not to be forthright when questioned by internal affairs regarding these basic

facts.

Despite these events, Chief Ferguson chose to turn a blind eye to potentially serious

misconduct and allow an atmosphere of hostility and retaliation to exist against Detective

Gutwill,

During the pendency of the internal affairs investigation, Detective Gutwill advised his

superiors of instances of harassment and hostile work environment as result of his filing a

complaint against a fellow officer. Although Chief Ferguson forwarded Detective Gutwill's

complaint to the Town's Human Resources Department for review, when Detective Gutwill went

to meet initially with the Town's Human Resources' officer regarding his ongoing problems, two

members of the police command staff appeared at the meeting. Your letter references that any

complaints and investigations handled by the Town's Human Resources Department will be kept

confidential. Clearly, this is not the case when two members of the command staff can appear at

supposedly confidential investigatory meetings.

Immediately after Chief Ferguson's determination that Detective Gutwill's complaint

against Detective Godino was unfounded, Chief Ferguson and other members of the command

staff sought to remove Detective Gutwill from his position with the DEA Taskforce under the

guise that new blood was needed and that is was time to give another officer a chance to work

with the task force. Detective Gutwill has been an outstanding and valuable member of the DEA

Taskforce for over 8 years and during the course of his time with the DEA has been involved in

hundreds of drug related arrests and seizures of significant amounts of money and property. As

recently as August 2015, Chief Ferguson signed off on another 2 year agreement with the DEA

wherein an officer (Gutwill) would be assigned to the DEA, It was only after Detective Gutwill

filed his internal affairs complaint with the Department, did Chief Ferguson suddenly seek to

remove Detective Gutwill from the DEA Taskforce, This action is retaliatory and is in violation

of G.L. c, 149 Section 185 in that Detective Gutwill

Disclosed to a supervisor an activity, policy or practice of the employer, or of another

employer with whom the employee's employer has a business relationship, that the

employee reasonably believes is in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation promulgated

pursuant to law, or which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health,

safety or the environment and;

Objected to, or refused to participate in any activity, policy or practice which the

employee reasonably believes is in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation promulgated


pursuant to law, or which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health,

safety or the environment.

Detective Gutwill's upcoming removal from the DEA Taskforce will result in a

significant loss of income on his part. Detective Gutwill has also been advised that he no longer

will have a desk in the Narcotic Office within the Department and will have his desk reassigned

to another officer, He also has been denied overtime opportunities within the Narcotic Unit since

the filing of his complaint, As you know, G.L. c. 149 Section 185 provides for significant

penalties against employers who retaliate against employees for asserting their rights under the

so-called "whistleblower" statute. Detective Gutwill intends to pursue any and all legal avenues

available to him if the continued and planned adverse employment actions by the Department are

implemented. If the Town's investigation into the allegations raised above is done impartially

and competently, there should be no question as to the validity of Detective Gutwill's actions.

As to the factual assertions raised in your letter from a supposed telephone conversation

between Detective Gutwill and Chief Ferguson on or about February 5, 2016, there appears to be

several issues regarding the context of these discussions and the source of the information that

was related to the Chief, Detective Gutwill's intention has never been to cause harm to the

Department, it was merely to report possible violations of departmental rules and regulations and

potential violations of Massachusetts Law.

If you or any of your associates need to communicate with this office, please feel free to

contact me.

Ve/y tsuly yours,3 '

Hl JanreirtW-fSinipslm,' 'Jr.


\ fSFRAMINGHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT


V\ /

TO: Detective Matt hew J. Gutwill

FROM: Chief Kenneth M. Ferguson

Notice of InvestigationRE:

March 2, 2016DATE:

Detective Gutwill:

I am writing to inform you that an independent / outside investigation will be conducted

regarding the question of whether or not you committed misconduct based on your telephone

conversation with me on February 5, 201G, wherein you alleged that Deputy Chief Kevin Slattery was

untruthful in the case of Commonwealth v. Scott Brown. Middlesex Superior Court Docket No.

MICR2010-106, and that Deputy Chief Ron Brandolini was recorded on a federal wiretap, implying that

he was involved in wrongdoing. Assumedly this wiretap was conducted in the case of USA v. Karapet

Dzhanikvan. Docket No.: 1: 11crl 0195 RWZS. During this same conversation, you stated that you were

going to "turn the place upside down," which seems to mean that you plan on initiating substantial

internal controversy within the Police Department. You appear to have made these statements either

in response to your planned removal from the DEA Taskforce or in an attempt to coerce me into

rescinding your planned re-assignment. You reiterated these statements to Assistant Town Manager

James Duane on or about February 10, 201G.

This matter will be investigated by the Town's Human Resources Department and an

experienced outside attorney, who specializes in workplace investigations, has been retained to

conduct this investigation.

If true, and proven by a preponderance of the evidence, at minimum, the above -de scribed

conduct may violate following:

Rule 1.02 Conduct Unbecoming a Police Officer

By making the aforementioned accusations, you may have committed specific acts of

improper and unlawful conduct which reflect discredit and reflects unfavorably upon

yourself and the Framingham Police Department. You may not have conducted yourself in

such a manner as to reflect most favorably on the Department and its members. Also, you

may have made defamatory statements with reckless disregard to their truth or falsity.

l


\ t\



V\ /

Other areas of inquiry may develop as the investigation progresses.

You are directed NOT to contact or cause any alleged victim(s), complainant(s), and/or witness(es), to

be contacted through any design of your own. This includes personal, electronic, telephonic, or third

party contact of any nature relating to the above-described matter of the investigation thereof. You

are hereby informed that failure to comply with any part of this written order will result in your being

subjected to disciplinary action up to and including termination.

Although the Town does not suggest that you have done so or would do so, your attention is directed

to G.L. c. 149 § 185, which generally prohibits, in part, any retaliation against persons who may make

disclosures of certain matters to supervisors and other appropriate Town representatives. Other laws

and policies would similarly prohibit any retaliatory actions or interference with the prosecution of a

criminal case. Any retaliatory action may subject the person engaging in such action to cisciplinary

action which may include a written reprimand, unpaid suspension, or termination of employment,

even if the investigation ultimately shows that the allegations sent forth in this letter did not occur.

Finally, your attention is directed to Framingham Police Department Rule 7.10, Cooperation with

Investigations. This Rule provides as follows:

Employees shall answer questions truthfully, respond to lawful orders, and render material and

relevant statements, in an internal department Investigation when such orders, questions and

statements are directly related to job responsibilities or fitness for duty. Nothing in the Section shall

require any employee to waive any Federal or State constitutional rights, including the right not to give

a compelled statement as set out in Carney v. Springfield and Baalioni v. Salem or to waive the right to

Union representation and representation by counsel.

Attorney Julie Moore of Employment Practices Group has been retained to conduct this investigation.

You will be notified of the outcome of this investigation upon its completion. Please contact

Framingham Human Resources Director Dolores Hamilton if you have any questions.

IA-201G

2


FRAMINGHAM POLtCE DEPARTMENT

SUSPENSION OF POLICE POWERS

ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE NOTICE

J

Detective Matthew i. Gutwill, !D: 285TO;

Chief Kenneth M. FergusonFROM:

Notice of Suspension of Police PowersRE:

August 19, 2016DATE:

Detective Gutwill:

I am writing to notify you that, effective immediately, and until further notice from me, you are being placed on

paid administrative leave, You are hereby administratively relieved from your duties at the Framingham Police

Department and from taking action in any manner as a Framingham Police Officer/ Detective or on behalf of the

Framingham Police Department.

You are ordered to turn in your department-issued weapons, magazines, ammunition, police identification

card(s), department-issued badge(s), portable radio, keys, access control devices, computer, cell phone, and any

other Police Department records, property, and/or equipment in your possession, You are further ordered not

to enter the non-public areas of the Framingham Police Department without being escorted by a member of the

Senior Command Staff and you are ordered to refrain from using or accessing any Police Department computer

equipment.

As explained in detail below, the aforementioned action is being taken because an outside investigator

determined that you were untruthful during a recent official Flurnan Resources Investigation.

* On Friday, February 5, 2016, you called me to complain about your planned rotation out of the DEA

Taskforcc. During this telephone conversation with me, you threatened to "blow the place up," "turn it

upside down," or something to that effect.

* You falsely denied making the above-mentioned statement to Attorney Julie Moore, an outside

professional investigator. This constitutes untruthfulness, in violation of Framingham Police Department

Rule A. 7. A copy of the August 15, 2016 reporrof Attorney Moore that further details theinvestigation -

conducted regarding this matter and her conclusions is attached to this Notice and incorporated herein

by reference.

As you know, a separate but related investigation is pending regarding the allegation that, during the above-

mentioned telephone call, you further stated that Deputy Chief Ronald Brandolini was recorded on a federal

wiretap. You may have falsely denied making that statement to the same independent investigator,

1



SUSPENSION OF POLICE POWERS

ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE NOTICE

The nature of the above-mentioned incidents leads theTown to conclude that it is currently not in the best

interest of the Framingham Police Department to allow you to remain on active duty as a Framingham Police

Officer / Detective.

Although the Town does not suggest that you have done so or would do so, your attention is directed to G.L. C.

139 § l&S, which generally prohibits, in part, any retaliation against persons who may make disclosures of

certain matters to supervisors and other appropriate Town representatives.

Any retaliatory action may subject the person engaging in such action to disciplinary action which may include

reprimand, suspension, or termination of employment, even if the investigation ultimately shows that the

above-referenced allegations did not occur.

Vou will receive your regular compensation while on this leave. A complete copy of Attorney Julie Moore's

August 15, 2015 Investigative Report regarding this matter, and outlining her conclusions, is attached hereto and

Is incorporated by reference- Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter.

I will be in touch in the near future regarding the formal provision of Motlce of Disciplinary Charges.

4L J.

Chief Kenneth M. Ferguson

i, Detective Matthew J. Gutwill, acknowledge receipt of this Notice and I understand the above-listed rights and

obligations.

(Signature)

Detective Matthew j. Gutwill

(P5N) (DATE)

IA-S016

2


508-532-5926

506-532-5927

Fax 508-532-5899

Kenneth M. Ferguson,

Chief

Framingham Police DepartmentSteven D. Trask,

Executive Officer

Ronald Brando! ini,

Deputy Chief

Kevin Slattery,

Deputy ChiefAugust 19, 2016

To: Detective Matthew Gutwill

From; Lieutenant Victor Pereira

Subj: EQUIPMENT TURNED IN PURSUANT TO ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE ON 08/19/16.

Detective Gutwill turned in the following equipment to Deputy Chief Brandolini on 08/19/16:

1 Motorola XTS1500 radio Serial #687CMF0704 with battery

1 Glock 27 Gen 4 .40 Serial #TAG406 with 1 magazine

1 Glock 30 Gen 4 ,45 Serial 8XYS945 with 3 magazines

1 Ford key

1 Detective badge #12

3 Police IDs

1 Department vehicle

Respectfully,

t-

Lt. Victor Pereira

1 William Welch Way

Framingham, MA 01 702

www.framinghampd.org


tEmploymentPractices Group

Dcpntng worbplnrt rights

August 15, 2016

Christopher J, PetriniPetrini & Associates, P.C.372 Union AvenueFramingham, MA 01702

Re: Detective Matthew Gutwill/ Framingham Police Department /Internal Investigation

Dear Mr. Petrini:

I am reporting my findings into the investigation I undertook on behalfof the Town ofFramingham ("the Town") into concerns expressed by ChiefKenneth Ferguson (the "Chief")about an alleged statement that Detective Matthew Gutwill ("Gutwill") made to him during atelephone conversation that they had on February 5, 2016. 1 As stated in the Notice of InternalInvestigation dated March 2, 2016, Gutwill reportedly told the Chief that he was going to "turnthe place upside down" or "blow the place up," which the Chiefunderstood to mean that heplanned to cause substantial internal controversy within the Framingham Police Department("FPD"). Matt reportedly made a simitar statement to Assistant Town Manager James Duanc("Duane") on or about February 10, 2016.

1 find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Gutwill did make this statement. 1 made acredibility determination in this "he said/he said" scenario. I find credible the Chiefs statementthat Gutwill made this remark. I do not find credible Gutwill's dental that he said it, as explainedmore fully below.

This report outlines the steps 1 took in reaching my findings. These steps include identifying thespecific claims that prompted this investigation; interviewing witnesses; outlining the responsesto the charges; reviewing and assessing the information 1 learned and documentation I obtainedfrom the Town, the FPD and persons with knowledge ofthe facts and relevant backgroundinformation; assessing credibility as needed; and ultimately preparing this written report.

INTRODUCTIONI.

A. My Retention, Commencement of the Investigation, and Timeline

On or about February 1 6, 2016, the Town's Human Resource Director, Dolores Hamilton("Hamilton"), contacted me and advised me that the Town wanted to retain me to act as an

3 You advised me not to prepare this report under the attorney-client privilege, as it is an internal investigation.t

8 Etjrt arret. SuBe 101. Wtllesfcy. MA 0246! ft Tel. 97e.97S,L'OIHJ ft Cell, 60J,e90-M7J * fas. 97S.ftSJ.8027 ft IMooreSEmploynwiHTO-Cftro ft mvw.EmpioymenlPG.ojm


independent investigator to review issues outlined in the March 2, 2016 Notice of Investigation.

(Exhibit 1) She provided me with a summary of the factual background as she understood it, and

we arranged for mc to review relevant documentation. She, and other FPU employees

throughout this investigation, subsequently provided me with additional information and

numerous relevant documents.

The matters under investigation were bifurcated. And there were additional matters that I

investigated that arose at and after this time, resulting in a considerable expansion ofmy work. I

took direction from Dolores Hamilton, Director of Human Resources ("Hamilton"), about

prioritizing the matters to investigate, many of which involved the same individuals named in

this report. Concluding this particular investigation was not the priority at the time but, in early

August, I was asked to prepare a report with my findings based on the numerous witness

interviews that 1 had conducted, This report is limited to the comments that the Chief reported

that Gutwill made to him on February 5, 201 6.

Timeliness is always an important factor in conducting and reporting on an investigation. Here,

as mentioned above, given all the factors involved, including the number ofwitnesses; the nature

of the issues; scheduling and coordination ofwitness interviews;2 and the length of time requireddocumenting my conclusions, the timing is well within acceptable standards.

B. Evidentiary Standard

I reviewed, compared and analyzed the evidence I received using a "preponderance of the

evidence" standard to determine whether the allegations were with or without merit/

"Preponderance of the evidence," for purposes of this report, means that the evidence on one side

outweighs, or is more than, the evidence on the other side. This is a qualitative, not quantitative,

standard. My conclusions are drawn from the totality of the evidence and thorough analysis of

all the facts. I also made credibility determinations.

C, Independence

Independence is an important component of this investigation. The Town and its representatives

allowed me discretion to conduct the investigation as I determined to be necessary. I was given

complete access to all requested witnesses and documents. No party interfered with, or

attempted to influence, my findings. Prior to conducting this investigation, I did not know the

Chief, Gutwill or any other member of the FPD. I have no stake or interest in the outcome. My

1 Gutwill travelled quite a bit during this investigation, and he took vacation time as well, delaying the completion of

his interviews until mid-May. Gutwill Was on vacation from April 15-29.

3 1 considered and gave appropriate weight to information that might be considered to be hearsay in legal

proceedings.

+ Those determinations were resolved pursuant to the factors discussed in the federal guidelines found in the

EEOC's June 18, 1999 publication, "Enforcement Outdance: Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful

Harassment by Supervisors," and such factors inchido inherent plausibility, demeanor, motive to falsify,

corroboration, and past record, I recognize that no factor is, by itself, determinative.

2


commitment has been to find the facts and ascertain whether the allegations have merit or not,based on my expertise and experience.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In connection with this investigation, I reviewed relevant documents and prepared a strategy andinvestigative plan of where to start. On February 23, 2016, 1 commenced witness interviews, Imet with five (5) FPD employees in connection with this investigation, with the last one being onMay 16.

A. Witness Interviews

I interviewed five (5) witnesses in connection with this investigation. Specifically, I met withthe following individuals on the dates specified and discussed topics related to this investigation:

1 . Gutwill — March 4, 2016, April 8, and May 172. Chief Ferguson - February 23 and March 83 . Sergeant Sean Riley - March 3 14. Assistant Town Manager lames Duane - MarchI 05. Deputy Chief Brandolini - March 3

My introduction to the witnesses was an important first step in the interview process, and Idiscussed several important points with each of them. I advised them that I am an attorney andHuman Resources consultant, and that I had been retained by the Town to act as an independentinvestigator. At the commencement of each interview, I advised the witnesses that I wasinvestigating complaints of possible inappropriate behavior. 1 advised each person that the Towntakes such allegations seriously and, in accordance with its policies, was looking into them todetermine if the claims could be substantiated and what steps, if any, should be taken.

1 explained that the objective of the investigation was to ascertain the facts and to report thosefacts back to the Town, so that it may consider any remedial or corrective measures, ifwarranted. 1 advised them that my goal was to be thorough, and the aim was to conclude theinvestigation in a timely manner. I advised witnesses that I needed them to be truthful andforthcoming in response to my questioning.

The rights of all parties were carefully considered to ensure fairness. 1 addressedconfidentiality.3 Interviewees were admonished that they should not interfere with theinvestigation or attempt to influence other witnesses. Management employees were told not todiscuss the investigation and to keep the matter strictly confidential. Further, I advised witnessesthat they were subject to the Town's policies prohibiting retaliation for either bringing a claim orparticipating in an investigation and other governing policies as well.

* I am mindful of the analysis set forth in Banner Health System dfb/a Banner Estrefta Medical Center and James A.Navarro, Case 28CA 023438, 358 NLRB No. 93 (July 30, 20 12), regarding confidentiality admonitions andprovided admonishments consistent with that ruling, where applicable, Hamilton agreed with the proposedconfidentiality admonishment I gave. 1 was also provided with a copy of Attorney Alan McDonald's February 2,2016 letter to Simoiteau on this topic.

3


I invited each person to provide me with any additional information, if necessary, following ourinterview(s). I did receive follow-up information as well as documentation from witnesses

I took contemporaneous written notes during the witness interviews. Quotations in this reportmay not be verbatim recitations of witnesses' statements, but are cited as accurately as possiblefrom my handwritten notes. It is my practice to have witnesses verify the accuracy of my notes,indicating that they were true and accurate to the best of their knowledge, recollection and belief.The witnesses in this investigation signed my notes without objection.

I reminded witnesses that the Town takes seriously claims of retaliation, and they should reportany possible retaliation to me or report it through the Town's reporting procedure.

B, Documents Reviewed

I reviewed the following documents that were relevant to this investigation:

• Notice of Investigation dated March 2, 2016 (Exhibit 1)• ChiefFerguson's two (2) pages ofhandwritten notes of the February 5, 2016

conversation (Exhibit 1}• ChiefFerguson's 5-page typed synopsis of the February 5, 2016 call with Gutwill

(Exhibit 2)

• Your February 1 6, 201 6 letter to Gutwill (Exhibit 3}• Attorney James Simpson's February 25, 201 6 letter to you (Exhibit 4)• Sergeant Sean Riley's February 4, 2015 email to himself (Exhibit 5)

III. RELEVANT POLICIES

The Town has promulgated and maintains a number of policies relevant to appropriateworkplace behavior, including telling the truth. They include the Department's "Policy onProfessional Standards & Internal Affairs 10-1." They also include "Rules and Regulations forthe Government of the Framingham, Massachusetts Police Department" set forth Rules 1.0through 11,0.

A. Department Professional Standards & InternalAffairs Policy 10-1

The Department's "Policy on Professional Standards & Internal Affairs 10- 1" has been in effectsince July 1, 2003 and was last reviewed on July 25, 2014. The Policy states that employees arcexpected to tell the truth in internal investigations. Sec Sections VI, G and I,

The first section of the policy is its "Policy Statement," which begins:

A relationship of trust and confidence between the employees of thispolice department and the citizens of the community is essential to thesuccessful accomplishment of law enforcement objectives. All policeemployees are expected to conduct themselves, whether on or off duty, in

4


such a manner as to reflect favorably upon themselves and theDepartment. The consistently high quality of this standard of conductestablishes and maintains the reputation of the Department and encouragesthe support of the community for police purposes and goals.

The Professional Standards and Internal Affairs functions are importantfor the maintenance of professional conduct in a law enforcement agency.The integrity ofthe Department depends on the personal integrity anddiscipline of each employee. To a large degree, the public image of thisDepartment is determined by the quality of the ProfessionalStandards/Internal Affairs Section in responding to allegations ofmisconduct against the Department or its officers.

The policy addresses the Department's commitment to the regulated, fair and impartialinvestigation of complaints made against it or its members. Section IV of the policy addresses"Investigation ofComplaints," and subsection K focuses on "Questioning/Investigation" in thecontext of an Internal Administrative Investigation.6 A review of these policy sections showsthat the Department expresses its commitment to the integrity of the investigative process.

The emphasis that the Department places on maintaining the integrity of the investigativeprocess is further evidenced in Section IV.K.,5, which declares: "An internal administrativeinvestigation should be conducted with the same degree of professional competence as isdevoted to a criminal investigation."

B. Department Rules and Regulations

The "Rules and Regulations for the Government of the Framingham, Massachusetts PoliceDepartment" {"Rules and Regulations") set forth Rules 1 .0 through 1 1 .0, each ofwhich hasvarious subparts. The introduction to the Rules and Regulations articulates the emphasis that theDepartment places on employees' adherence to the highest ethical standards:

The standard ofconduct expected of law enforcement employees is oftenhigher than that demanded of other municipal employees. We recognizethis in accepting appointment to our chosen profession. When the needsof public confidence require, we are held to a high ethical standard whichdictates the avoidance of even the appearance of impropriety. . ..

Rule 1.0 pertains to "Professional Conduct and Responsibilities," It includes twenty-one (21)subparts, set forth as Rule 1 .0 1- Rule 1 .21 . Rule 1 .0 emphasizes the value that the Departmentplaces on loyalty to the Department and its officers and the maintenance of a genuine spirit ofCooperation:

6 The term 'Internal Administrative Investigation" appears in the policy under the heading "Special Terms,11 and isdefined as "a term used to include both Professional Standards Inquiries and Internal Affairs Investigations," Itfurther states, in Section III, F of the policy, that "[although handled differently, both Internal Affairs Investigationsand Professional Standards Inquiries shall he considered Internal Administrative Investigations,"

5


Effective police operations require loyalty to the department and to one's

associates, maintaining a genuine spirit of cooperation and renderingappropriate assistance to another police officer or citizen exposed todanger or in a situation where danger may be lurking.

Rule 1,02, titled "Conduct Unbecoming an Officer/Employee" highlights the importance that theDepartment places on ensuring that employees refrain from conducting themselves in a way thatreflects unfavorably on the Department and its members:

Employees shall not commit any specific act or acts of improper,unlawful, disorderly or intemperate conduct, whether on or off duty,which reflects) discredit or reflcct(s) unfavorably upon the officer, upon

other employees or upon the police department, Employees shall conduct

themselves at all times, both on and off duty, in such a manner as to reflectmost favorably on the department and its members.

Rule 4,7 is entitled TRUTHFULNESS. This Rule states:

Employees shall speak the truth at all times when on duty or when discussing amatter arising out of or related to the officers duties or the operation, organization

or business of the department. In cases in which an officer is not allowed by theregulations of the department to divulge facts within his or her knowledge, theofficer will decline to speak on the subject.

Employees shall not fabricate, withhold, or destroy any evidence of any kind.

Rule 7.0 contains ten (10) subparts, each of which pertains to "Attention to Duty." Rule 7.1 0, titled

"Cooperation with Investigations," underscores the Department's commitment to the proceduralintegrity of an internal Department investigation and the need to tell the truth:

Employees shall answer questions truthfully, respond to lawful orders, andrender material and relevant statements, in an internal departmentinvestigation when such orders, questions and statements are directlyrelated to job responsibilities or fitness for duty. Nothing in the Sectionshall require any employee to waive any Federal or State constitutional

rights, including the right not to give a compelled statement as set out inCarney v. Springfield and Baglioni v. Salem or to waive the right to Union

representation and representation by counsel.

IV. PRELM1NARY BACKGROUND INFORMATION

What led to the February 5, 2016 conversation is important context to help understand what wassaid and why it may have been said during that call. It started back in September 201 5, andinvolved a criminal trial in the Framingham District Court in a matter entitled Commonwealth v,Yaritza Trinidad, Docket No.: 1549-CR-001276, FPD Case No.: 15031 10, Gutwill and Godino,

6


among others, had participated in the arrest ofthree {3} suspects who allegedly were planning anarmed home invasion. The case began with a traffic stop.

Gutwill and Godino were both expected to be called as witnesses to testify about the reasons forthat stop (and what followed). Godino took the stand first, on September 1 , 201 5. Histestimony, however, was inconsistent with the testimony that Gutwill was prepared to give.Following Godino's testimony, the Assistant District Attorney ("ADA") dismissed the case,Gutwill never had the opportunity to testify. Gutwill has expressed his belief that his reputationhas been irreparably harmed by Godino's testimony, and that Godino's testimony impugned hisintegrity.

Consequently, on September 22, 2015, after learning that the case was dismissed, Gutwill lodgedan interna] complaint against Godino. He complained to Sergeant Chris Montuori ("Montuori"),Deputy Chief Kevin Slattery ("SIartery"), and Assistant to the Chief Brian Simoncau("Simoneau"), Externally, he contacted the District Attorney's office. He also wanted to speakwith a local judge, An Internal Investigation ensued at the FPD for the next few months,Gutwill was confident that the finding would be in his favor. His attorney later said that thefinding "lack[ed] any rational basis" and is "plainly wrong." (Exhibit 5)

On January 8, 2016, the Chief sent a memorandum to Gutwill and Godino advising them that theInternal Investigation had concluded, He advised them that Godino had been cleared ofwrongdoing. He wrote that the allegation was "unfounded, meaning that the alleged act did notoccur." From Gutwill's perspective, "That means Godino could come back after [him] to say[he] was untruthful." Gutwill was devastated.

After hearing the finding, Gutwill lodged further complaints. He reached out to Assistant TownManager Jim Duane ("Duane"), as described below. He contacted and met with investigatorsfrom the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), He retained two attorneys, Ken Anderson andJim Simpson, to represent his interests.7

Gutwill made clear that he was serious about his intentions to draw attention to what heperceived to be an egregious wrong.

Gutwill got more news that troubled him. A few weeks after learning about the outcome of theInternal Investigation, the Chief notified Gutwill that he (and Sergeant Scott Brown) was goingto be rotated out of the DEA Task Force Officer ("TFO") position that he had held since 2008.This greatly upset Gutwill, as he said it was unexpected. He also claimed that it was unlawful.(Exhibit 5)

One or both attorneys were present at Gutwill's interviews. They were both cooperative, Also present at Gutwill'sinterviews was Union representative, David DelPretc ("Del Prate"). At times, one of these gentlemen left early ordid not attend, bnt Gutwill always had at least one representative with him.

7


K FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Alleged Comment Made Purine February 5, 2016 Phone CallA.

Against the backdrop described above, Gutwill called the Chief at his home on February 5, 2016,a call that became the trigger for this investigation. More specifically, at 4:59 p.m. that day,Gutwill called the Chief on his cell phone, and they talked about Gutwill's anticipated rotationfrom the DEA Task Force.8 The Chief did not work that day, as his son was home sick. The calllasted for forty-nine (49) minutes.

According to the Chief, during the course of the conversation, Gutwill stated that he intended to"turn the place upside down" or "blow the place up."

Gutwill denies making that statement. He said he said nothing close to it. He said he docs nottalk like that. He said the word he uses is "shitshow."

Gutwill considered the conversation to be "off-the-rccord," as he explained that he utilized theChiefs open door policy and was comfortable talking to the Chief. He said that he expected thisconversation to be between him and the Chief only, and "it was to go nowhere." For example,Gutwill said that he told the Chief, "You Pcked me" during the course of the conversation. Hesaid that he never would have said that to the Chief if their talk was "on-the-record" because hiswords could have been considered to be insubordination.

The prompt for the call was S lattery's action of sending an email to Gutwill's supervisor at theDEA, Special Agent in Charge Ferguson ("SAC Ferguson") about his anticipated removal fromthe DEA. Gutwill believed that Slattcry was "airing [the FPD's] dirty laundry" to the DEA. Hewas concerned that the FPD could lose a TFO position as a result. Quite simply, Gutwill thoughtthat Slattery acted inappropriately and, again, was concerned about how it affected hisreputation.

Gutwill did not limit the scope ofthe February 5 conversation to Slavery's email to the DEA.Numerous topics were covered during the lengthy call. I spoke with the Chief and Gutwillextensively about what was covered during the call, and I reviewed the Chiefs detailed noteswith Gutwill and gave him the chance to tell me what he thought was accurate and what hedisagreed with. (Exhibit 3)

Much of what was said is undisputed, while other parts of the conversation arc disputed.Without getting into all the details of what was said, below are topics that indisputably werediscussed:

• The truthfulness ofS lattery's testimony in the Scott Brown case

• Whether the DEA would accept a replacement if Gutwill was rotated out

' The Chief was at home; he had nothing alcoholic to drink that day and was otherwise not impaired when theyspoke. He said that he has a good memory of the call.

8


• Slattcry's words in an email to Gutwill that SAC Ferguson had "recommended"that he be rotated from the Task Force; the Chief clarified that the SAC did notrecommend it, but rather, had supported it.

• Gutwill's belief that he was being rotated out of the Task Force in retaliation ofsubmitting a complaint against Godino; the Chief said that was incorrect and thathe was being rotated out as he had been in the Task Force for approximatelyseven (7) years,9 and that it was time to give someone else an opportunity. TheChief talked in more detail about the ongoing discussions the FPD had beenhaving on the topic.

• Gutwill's potential interest in the position of Evidence Officer, and how Gutwillnever applied for the position.

• Rumors circulating about Gutwill's removal from the DBA; Gutwill named twoindividuals who he said were improperly discussing it.

• Gutwill's disappointment in the outcome of his complaint against Godino; he saidthat he had reported it to the Chief because the Chiefhad a reputation for beinghonest and doing the right thing. The Chiefexplained that he spoke with the twoADAs on the case prior to reaching his finding.

• The Internal Investigation that was conducted into Godino's testimony.

• Gutwill's opinion that the flurry of emails from February 4-5 was harming hisreputation with the DEA.

• Gutwill saying that he was going to go to the MCAD with his complaints,10

Below are topics that Gutwill and the Chief dispute were said, other than that Gutwill was goingto "turn this place upside down."

• That Gutwill said that he had Deputy Chief Brando) ini "on a wire."

* Whether Gutwill told the Chief that he was going to an outside agency, such as the FBI.

• Whether Gutwill said that he was going to retire in July, if he had to leave the Task Force.

Accordingly, there is quite a bit of common ground on what was discussed and some areas wherethe Chief and Gutwill disagree.

' He has been in the Task Force for eight (8) years.

10 The Chief believes that he said, "I am taking an MCAD complaint against all of you on Monday morning."

9


B. Documentation ofthe Call

Gutwill has no notes of the February 5 conversation.

The Chief, on the other hand, prepared a handwritten synopsis immediately following theconversation, on February 5, (Exhibit 2) On the second page of the notes, item #1 2 states,"Blow place up," The Chief recalled writing that down that evening, as it stuck out in his mindbecause it mirrored what Riley reported to him the day before about Gutwill "leaving the place inshambles." The Chief said that he may have added more notations as the weekend progressedand he remembered additional points that Gutwill made.

Additionally, shortly thereafter, using those notes as his outline, the Chief prepared a more

detailed, typewritten 5-page summary of that conversation. (Exhibit 3) He wrote, on page 5 ofthat summary, "He stated that he could 'blow the place up,['] 'turn it upside down,' or somethingto that effect."

C. Additional Evidence of What Was Said on the Call

The Chiefhas repeatedly asserted that Gutwill made the "turn the place upside down" or "blowthe place up" comment.

L The Chief's Report to Others

The Chiefadvised me that he reported Gutwill' s conversation to several people. On either theevening of Friday, February 5 or on Saturday, February 6, he called Simoneau and Slattery toadvise them of what Gutwill said. Early the next week, the Chief told Deputy Chiefs StevenTrask and Ronald Brandolini ("Brandolini") as well as Sergeant Sean Riley. He informed you,as Town Counsel, as well.

1 spoke to Brandolini about this. Brandolini confirmed that the Chief reported portions of thatFebruary 5 conversation to him within days of it happening. Specifically, he said that, onMonday, February 8, 2016, the Chief told him that Gutwill had called him on February 5. Hereported that Gutwill said he was going to turn the place upside down, that Slattery was a liar,and that "Brandolini was up on a wire."

Town Counsel 's Letter Repeating What the ChiefReported Was Said

Additionally, less than a week after the call on February 1 1, 2016, you drafted a 3-page letter toGutwill recapping the telephone conversation, (Exhibit 4) In the third paragraph, you wrote,"During that same conversation you stated that you would he filing a complaint with theMassachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) on Monday, February S,h and thatyou were going to "turn the place upside down, " which seems to mean that you plan on

initiating substantial internal controversy within the Police Department." You advised Gutwill,in that letter, that an investigation would ensue about the numerous issues about which Gutwillcomplained, and that it extended to a complaint that Slattery lodged against Gutwill.

2.

10


In the Notice of Investigation that was prepared on March 2, you formalized the scope of theinvestigation that was to be conducted. (Exhibit 1) You advised Gutwill that several matters,including the "turn the place upside down" comment, was included in the scope of theinvestigation.

On February 25, 201 6, Gutwill's attorney, James Simpson, responded to your February 1 1"1letter. (Exhibit 5) Attorney Simpson did not deny that Gutwili made the "turn the place upsidedown" comment, He wrote, with reference to Gutwill's February 5 conversation with the Chief,that "Gutwill's intention has never been to cause harm to the Department!;] it was merely toreport possible violations of departmental rules and regulations and potential violations ofMassachusetts Law (sic)."

Gutwill's February 4, 2016 Conversation with Sergeant Riley3.

A day before the February 5 call with the Chief, Gutwill called his friend, Sergeant Sean Riley.("Riley") after 4:00 p.m. while Riley was in the car on his drive home from the Grafton PoliceDepartment,

a. Riley's Version

According to Riley, Gutwill was "spouting off' about a lot of things. He said that things were"coming to a head." He said that he was being pulled out of the DEA.

Riley said that Gutwill told him that he spoke to an outside agency. He told Riley that he wantedto give him the "heads up" that the agency was going to start an investigation into the NarcoticsUnit Riley replied, "If there's something amiss, I need to know. It's my unit." Riley said thatGutwill refused to tell him what agency he spoke with, but said that the agency was going tocome in and likely look at the books and the buy funds. Riley said that Gutwill said that theagency would have to look at everything that had happened before Riley came on board,including the investigation into Godino.

Riley said that Gutwill then started "rambling," Riley recalls him saying, "You know me, Sean.I leave places in shambles," He said words to the effect of, "I'm going to leave it in shambles.Like a tornado. Upside down."

By way ofbackground, Riley said that Gutwill had issues with his previous employer, theSuffolk County Sheriffs Department. He filed a lawsuit after he was terminated, and he wassubsequently then reinstated. Similarly, Riley said that Gutwill sued the Town of Ashland,where he had worked, and received a settlement, 1 believe that these facts are undisputed.

After the call, Riley texted the Chief and asked him to give him a call. They spoke that day, onFebruary 4, Specifically, Riley told the Chief that he needed to put him on notice of whatGutwill had said, and he then proceeded to tell him what Gutwill reported to him. Riley felt thathis professional obligation trumped the friendship that he has with Gutwill.

On February 4 at 5:13 p.m., Riley documented the two (2) calls. (Exhibit G) Specifically, Rileytyped, "Put it on a [WJord document and save it. Include comments about leaving the place in

11


shables (sic) so to speak or causing issues on the way out. Include that I advised the Chief aswell,"1 1 Also, Riley handwrote, 'Talked about an outside agency coming in to investigate theNarcotic Unit Wouldn't say who. Only said it was prior to me."

b. The Chiefs Version

The Chief recalled Riley's call to him. Riley asked him if somelhing was going on in theDetective Bureau. He said that he had talked to Gutwill, and Gutwill told him that he (Gutwill)may want to get out of the Drug Unit. He said that he was going to retire in June. He said, "Youknow how I am. I don't give up. I'm gonna turn this place upside down."

C. Gutwill's Response

Gutwill denied making a statement to Riley about leaving the place in shambles. He says that hedid say to Riley, "I know how this ends, Scan, This doesn't end good with anyone. It ends witha trail ofdestruction where nobody wins." He denied that that was to be constituted as a threat,but added that he has "been through this before." He mentioned what happened to him inAshland, but offered no details. He told me, "There are no winners."

Gutwill s February 9, 2015 Meeting with James Duane

Gutwill sought out Assistant Town Manager James Duane to discuss the concerns that he had.12They met briefly in Town Hall on February 5, at which time Gutwill gave Duane an envelopelabeled "Report/Phone." It contained a CD that had phone records and other information relatingto the Internal Investigation into Godino.

A few days later, on February 9, 2016, 1J Gutwill came to Duane's office, unscheduled, andasked to meet. They met for about sixty (60) to ninety (90) minutes and discussed a wide rangeof topics. Gutwill said that he discussed the same topics that he covered in his February 5conversation with the Chief, just days earlier. Among other things, Gutwill said that he toldDuane that he had a meeting with the FBI about the alleged cover-up in the Godinoinvestigation, and that exposure of the issues would be "very, very bad" for the Department.

4.

Duane does not recall Gutwill saying words such as "blow this place up" or "turn this placeupside down."

Duane did not take contemporaneous notes. Gutwill, likewise, has no documentation of thatmeeting.

11 Riley did not further document the conversations.

15 Originally, they had a scheduled meeting on January 19, but Gutwill cancelled it.

Gutwill believes that the meeting took place on February 4, 2016, but Duane's records indicate that it actuallytook place on February 9.

12


5. Gutwill Saying that He Made a "Big Stink "

In the May 17 interview, Gutwill told me that he "made a big stink" after he learned of theChiefs findings in the Internal Investigation. He expressed to me, as he did to the Chief onFebruary 5, that he believes that he was retaliated against and rotated out of the DEA because he"made a big stink."

I asked Gutwill to define "big stink." He said that first contacted the FBI. He said that he toldthe Chiefabout it on February 5 (though the Chief does not recall). Also, Gutwill said that hecontacted and met with Duane on February 9. Gutwill said that he had a conversation with theChief outside his car after the investigation was complete, and he told the Chief that he shouldlook at phone records. He also approached the Union (who he said did nothing). He said that hewent to Chris Tarrant of the DA's Office. Gutwill told me, "I wasn't going away - they don'tlike that."

VI ANALYSISAND CONCLUSION

Ample evidence exists for me to conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Chiefsreport ofwhat Gutwill said during the February 5 conversation about "turn this place upsidedown" or "blow this place up" is accurate. That also means that I do not find credible GutwilFs

denial that he said it 1 find that Gutwill violated the policies cited above as they relate totruthfulness, integrity during investigations, and conduct unbecoming an officer.

To help resolve this "he said/he said" scenario, 1 looked to evidence beyond the verbalstatements from the Chief and Gutwill in this investigation. I looked at documentation. Forexample, the Chief made notes immediately after the phone conversation to document what wassaid during the call. He specifically wrote, "Blow place up." His typewritten notes that followedalso document that Gutwill used those or similar words.

The February 16 letter from you to Gutwill and GutwilFs attorney's February 25 response alsowere relevant. In your letter, you repeated the words that the Chief reported to you. In Attorney

Simpson's response, the absence of a denial of those words was conspicuous, Instead, he statedthat Gutwill has never intended to cause harm to the FPD. To me, he was trying to step backfrom the words that Gutwill used, which were said while Gutwill was upset, emotional andangry.

Gutwill docs admit to much of the topics that the Chief said they discussed during that lengthyphone call. One undisputed topic was that Gutwill said that he would be filing a complaint withthe MCAD. That clearly would have caused the FPD to defend itself and be in an adversarialposition with Gutwill. Certainly Gutwill has the right to file an MCAD charge if he feels that hisrights have been violated under M.G.L. ch. 151 B. He never did, and he never claimed to me thathe was discriminated against based on any legally-protected characteristic.

I also looked to see ifothers could corroborate the statement that the Chiefsaid that Gutwillmade. The Chief advised me that he told members of his administrative team, to include theDeputy Chiefs and Simoneau, right after Gutwill made the remarks that he did. Further, he saidthat he told his confidant, Riley, and you. I spoke with Brando! ini about his recollection of this,

13


and he confirmed that the Chief told him about what Gutwill said, including "turn this placeupside down" within days of it being said. I find Bnmdolini to be credible.

Another compelling piece of evidence was Riley's report of his conversation with Gutwill theday before, on February 4. Riley said that Gutwill said that he would leave the FPD in"shambles." His contemporaneous documentation confirms what Gutwill said. I find Riley to becredible. Though Gutwill denies using those particular words, he does admit to using verysimilar words. That is, Gutwill says that he told Riley that the situation ends "with a trail ofdestruction where nobody wins." To me, that is analogous to leaving the place in shambles.Destruction and shambles are virtually synonymous.

Along the same lines, Gutwill told me that he made a "big stink" after the Internal Investigation

findings did not go his way. He told me about ail the steps he took to demonstrate thai he made a"big stink." He told ine that he contacted (he FBI, a Town official, the Union and the DistrictAttorney's office. He clearly has a right to talk to whoever lie wants about the perceived wrong,but I note that he characterized his actions as a "big stink,"

Similarly, Gutwill told Duane that "exposing" the issues within the Department would make theFPD look "very, very bad." .

For the reasons cited above, 1 find the Chiefs report about what Gutwill said on February 5 to lac

credible. In concluding that Gutwill, by a preponderance of the evidence, did make the statementabout the FPD, 1 also understand the circumstances surrounding it, Gutwill felt victimized. Hefelt deflated. He felt that his integrity was in jeopardy by a confluence of factors that were out ofhis control. That does not excuse, however, his failure to admit making the statement during thecourse of this investigation. And it docs not excuse him making such an inflammatory statementin the first plate, even though he was emotionally-charged when lie likely said it.

* * *

Thank you very much, and please do not hesitate to contact me iff can provide additionalinformation.

Very truly yours,

WMe A. Moore, Esquire, SPHR, SHRM-SCP

Enclosures

!4


August 19, 2016

Detective Gutwill:

I am ordering you to turn over your department-issued cell phone to Lt. Tersoni by GSOO on Monday,

August 22, 2016. Failure to comply with this order will constitute insubordination and you will be

subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination, for your failure to comply.

Deputy Chief Ron Brandolini


'METROWEST

DA1IY NEWS

Frartinghart police supervisors vote no confidence in

police chief

Thursday Posted May 26, 201 6 at 6:57 PMUpdated May 26, 201 6 at 9:09 PM

By Jim Haddadin

Daily News StaffFollow

FRAMINGHAM — In a sign of the widening rift between the police department's

ranking officers and its top brass, members of the union representing superior officers

signaled last month they have no confidence in Chief Ken Ferguson and his deputies to

lead the department.

The Framingham Police Superior Officers Association, the 27-member union that

represents sergeants and lieutenants, held a vote of no confidence in Ferguson's

administration in early April.

Sgt. Scott Brown, the union's president, said union members have been "harassed" and

mistreated by Ferguson's deputy chiefs, whom he said have shown a level of "steady

disrespect" for the department's superior officers.

"It centers around the deputy chiefs and their targeting of employees for disciplinary

action ... ," Brown said of the no confidence vote. "It's just their general discourse

between administration and the ranking officers. It's a prevailing, harassing attitude."

10/20/2016http ://www.metrowestdailyn. . .


Brown said 24 union members participated in the April 7 vote, which was split into a

pair of questions: one asking whether members have confidence in the police

administration, and a second asking whether they have no confidence in Ferguson and

his deputies.

While some members of the group abstained, Brown said not a single officer voiced

support for the chief.

"He did not receive a single vote of support from the superior officers," Brown said.

Asked earlier this week to discuss the union's position, Ferguson referred questions to

Town Manager Bob Halpin. In a brief statement provided to the Daily News, Halpin

acknowledged the no confidence vote, saying the union had posted a statement

regarding its position on the association's bulletin board at police headquarters.

"Since that time there has be no communication from the union on the reasoning for

this vote," Halpin wrote. "Meanwhile, the town manager and chief of police actively

promote healthy and productive labor/management relations and therefore we decline

further comment at this time."

The union poll marks the latest development in a turbulent stretch for Ferguson, a 31-

year veteran of the department who became police chief in 2013.

In September, Ferguson placed the department's longtime evidence room officer, Alan

Dubeshter, on administrative leave. Two months later, the chief was forced to

publicly acknowledge that investigators from the state Attorney General's Office are

conducting a probe about money that went missing from police headquarters.

The admission came after an internal email regarding the investigation was leaked to

a local television station. Dubeshter, who has not been publicly identified as a suspect in

the case, has since resigned.

Earlier this month, Ferguson placed a second officer — Deputy Chief Kevin Slattery —

on paid administrative leave.

10/20/2016http://www.metrowestdailyn...


Slattery, the head of operations for the police department, oversees the patrol division

and street crimes unit, as well as crime scene services and community policing efforts.

Ferguson previously declined to comment on the reasons behind the move, saying

only that it was related to an "active investigation."

In an email Tuesday, Town Counsel Christopher Petrini wrote that Slattery was placed

on leave "due to an alleged improper verbal comment he made regarding a subordinate."

Petrini wrote that the town will not comment because it deals with an ongoing

investigation of a personnel matter.

The Daily News has learned the town's human resources director has retained a legal

firm with expertise in employment practices to investigate the allegations raised in

Slattery's case. Efforts Thursday to contact Slattery's lawyer, William Mayer, were

unsuccessful.

Petrini stressed that the decision to place Slattery on leave was "unrelated to the

allegations of criminal conduct regarding Officer Dubeshter and the Framingham Police

Department evidence room."

The human resources investigation comes on the heels of a separate labor dispute that

was recently resolved by the police department.

Last year, Officer Jeffrey DeRosa filed a complaint with the Department of Labor

Relations alleging Slattery and other supervisors retaliated against DeRosa, a steward

for the Framingham Police Officers Union, for seeking information about training on

behalf of other union members.

DeRosa, the department's canine officer, was transferred in December 2014 from the

detective bureau to the patrol division and was later removed from his position with the

Metropolitan Law Enforcement Council, a regional police agency that serves

Framingham and surrounding towns.

10/20/2016http ://www.metrowestdailyn. . .


The police department reached a settlement with DeRosa to resolve the labor dispute in

November 2015. The department agreed to reassign DeRosa to the street crimes unit,

reinstate his position with METROLEC and consider him for a future transfer to

narcotics, according to a copy of the agreement, which was obtained this week by the

Daily News through a request made under the state's public records law.

The town also brokered a second agreement with DeRosa in March 2016, agreeing to

pay him $20,000 to resolve a lawsuit DeRosa filed against the town in Middlesex

Superior Court alleging he was owed unpaid wages.

The town previously paid DeRosa more than $27,000 as part of the same wage dispute,

according to the settlement agreement. The town also agreed to allow DeRosa to work

one hour less per shift than other detectives so he can care for his police dog, and to pay

him overtime for any additional time he spends caring for the dog outside of his regular

work day.

While the town recently reached a new contract with police patrolmen, it remains

locked in contentious negotiations with the supervisors union, which saw its last

contract expire in July 2015. Ferguson has publicly voiced support for the department

to leave the state's Civil Service system, a suggestion the union has yet to accept.

Brown said the union's recent vote of no confidence in the chief is unrelated to the

ongoing contract talks, which began in September. He said the union voiced concerns

to Ferguson regarding the conduct of the deputy chiefs as early as August, stressing he

should assert more control over the department.

"He's allowing the deputies to run loose on the department and mistreat his employees,"

Brown said.

Cheryl Tully Stoll, chairwoman of the Board of Selectmen, said she expects the board to

discuss the ongoing discord at a future non-public meeting.

While the schism between Ferguson and union members is concerning, Tully Stoll said

she has full confidence in the chief to lead the department.

10/20/2016http://www.metrowestdailyn...


"I think residents should be confident that policing is being done competently and

effectively in the town," Tully Stoll said. "There are some administrative issues that are

going on, and there is clearly a labor relations issue that needs to be addressed."

Jim Haddadin can be reached at 617-863-7144 or [email protected]. Follow

him on Twitter: @JimHaddadin.

10/20/2016http://www.metrowestdailyn. . .
