Anyone can now access disciplinary and complaint histories of Massachusetts police officers after a state police oversight body on Tuesday posted the long-awaited information online.
All police departments in the state were required by March to submit certain misconduct data to the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission, which has the authority to decertify officers.
The publication of complaints against officers is part of a nationwide reform effort that has sought greater transparency and accountability of police officers and the departments in which they operate.
“The public will be able to know that action is taken when they complain,” POST Commission Executive Director Enrique Zuniga said in an interview. “That’s an important part of the whole theme of police accountability.”
Much of this complaint and disciplinary information can already be obtained through public records requests, which anyone may file with police departments. However, this is the first centralized dataset of proven complaints for all active Massachusetts officers in one place and available without request.
Data snapshot
This initial bulk release lists 3,413 records for 2,165 officers from 273 law enforcement agencies.
It captures records submitted to departments from December of 1984 through January of 2023; complaints that were received by departments since February of this year have not been included yet, but will be reviewed and published by POST on a rolling basis.
The data is not inclusive of all alleged misconduct: the records only represent complaints that have been sustained against officers, meaning investigators found sufficient evidence supporting the allegations or violations.
Complaints that investigators concluded were unfounded or not-sustained (meaning there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove the allegations), for example, are not included in this dataset. That data can also provide helpful metrics or point to trends across or within departments.
Zuniga said it’s possible the commission will share data on not-sustained complaints in the future.
“We are considering or will consider perhaps reporting not-sustained complaints on an aggregate type of fashion … perhaps by rank or by department,” he said. “A big directive of our statute is to look at trends, and we’re not oblivious to the fact that unsustained complaints is something that is important for us to look at.”
What the dataset shows
- Officer name
- Date of incident
- Discipline meted out
- Case number (unique to the department)
- Officer status (certified, terminated, etc.)
- Violation(s)
- Complaints against officers who resigned or retired to avoid discipline
What the dataset does not show
- Criminal offender information (it will be redacted)
- Complaints that were unfounded, exonerated or not-sustained (NS)
- Complaints that remain under investigation
- Complaints against officers who have since retired or resigned in “good standing”
- Previous departments an officer has served in (the data only lists their most current agency, but complaints may be from multiple agencies)
The dataset also does not capture every category of police misconduct.
Departments must only report certain violations to POST.
- reports alleging bias on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation
- complaints regarding use of excessive, prohibited, or deadly force
- actions that result in serious bodily injury or death, including shootings
- misrepresenting or falsifying reports or evidence
- criminal misconduct (felonies and misdemeanors)
- other misconduct such as unprofessionalism, policy violations and conduct unbecoming of an officer
The agencies with the most reported disciplinary records are also some of the largest: Massachusetts State Police (493), Springfield Police Department (417) and Boston Police Department (373).
The New Bedford Police Department ranked fourth in the state for the number of sustained complaints reported to POST, with 92 complaints among 47 officers. Four officers had five or more sustained complaints; a majority had one or two sustained complaints.
The most common discipline meted out was a written reprimand or a suspension of one to five days for New Bedford officers.
Excluding State Police, Boston PD and Springfield PD, the average number of complaints for the police departments that reported disciplinary records is eight (a number that hasn’t been weighted for department size), according to POST.
As with most data, users should be wary of its potential imperfections, according to Zuniga.
“We have to anticipate that there will have to be a process for correcting some of this data once we put it out there,” Zuniga told the commission in a meeting this month. “We hope that it's not a lot of corrections.”
NBPD submitted erroneous data to POST last year, which it later corrected and resubmitted.
Zuniga previously said POST is committed to accuracy and that he believes law enforcement agencies across the state are, too. During the data collection process, POST received requests from police departments to update the data they submitted, or to resubmit it for accuracy.
The publication of this data coincides with a recent recommendation that NBPD start posting such information on its own website.
The Jensen Hughes report on NBPD, released earlier this month, recommended the department issue an annual complaint report on its website with summary misconduct information.
“Complaint processes conducted in secrecy may undermine public trust and confidence that law enforcement officials will hold themselves accountable,” the report stated. “However, law enforcement agencies across the country are increasingly making police complaint data publicly available … the department should be as transparent as possible in reporting its police misconduct complaint data.”
The report concluded NBPD’s software program allows for the aggregation of misconduct data to produce a public report.
While there are logistical demands (ensuring the data is accurate, updating it regularly, and redacting certain information as required by law), Zuniga said he agreed with the recommendation for departments to post their data directly online.
“If there's something that’s a public record, for example, and you get it requested, why not … make it available to everybody? Why not put it on the website?” he said. “Don’t make the public or the press ask every time … If it’s a public interest, if you are producing it, might as well make it available to everybody.”
The Light requested comment from NBPD Chief Paul Oliveira through a department spokesperson on the release of the POST data, as well as any plans to publish misconduct information directly on the department’s website.
“The chief was receptive to the Jensen Hughes recommendation as it pertains to internal affairs records,” NBPD spokesperson Scott Carola said in an email Tuesday. “We will be releasing these on an annual basis.”
Last year, Zuniga said they planned to publish the disciplinary data in two stages: an initial, limited dataset; and then an interactive dashboard in which users can query, filter and compare and contrast agencies.
Asked about the status of that dashboard, Zuniga said an initial investment for it would require hundreds of thousands of dollars, which the commission will seek during the next budget cycle.
Of the 440 law enforcement agencies under POST’s review, 167 reported having no sustained complaints, and as a result are not included in the dataset, according to the commission.
Zuniga noted this data is summary in nature. POST does not have all of the underlying disciplinary information (such as investigative reports), but departments may have those records.
The data provided by POST, he said, can serve as a roadmap for people who may want to inquire further with the departments.
To view or download the misconduct data, visit mass.gov/info-details/officer-disciplinary-records-database. It will be updated regularly.
Email Anastasia E. Lennon at alennon@newbedfordlight.org.
