Medford Police Department Memorandum To: Ul. Stephen M. Lebert cc: Capt. K, DiBlasi From: Capt. A. Doherty Date: February 9", 2006 Re: Complaint 2005-013 Officer Lebert; Please be advised that the formal intemal inquiry requested by Chief Leo A. Saceo Jr, on December 30° 2006 has been completed. This inquiry does not have a direct impact on the findings by Lieutenant DiStefano in his report of January 17° ef this year. ‘The inquiry focused on the overall operation, the involvement of Medford officers, andthe application of both rules and regulations and Policy and procedure governing this scenario, ‘The case has been filed as SUSTAINED in that your actions on scene that day in were found to be outside the boundaties of avceptable conduct ‘There are a number of general issues that should be addressed in attempting to explain the rationale for this decision. I have outlined the most prominent issues and included “suggestions” where appropriate. ‘On December 30 2005, Captain Michael DiChiara indicated to you by verbal order that you ‘were to assist United States Postal authorities in an operation involving the controlled delivery of nareotic substances, ‘The Captain also indicated that you were to act in @ manner consistent with assisting the inspectors in carrying out their assignment. You performed your duties well in assisting the Inspectors atthe Alexander Avenue location. However upon entering the secondary Somerville location you took a primary role in an operation that you had neither ‘commensurate authority nor jurisdiction to engage. It is understandable that your actions ‘were predicated upon your perceived exigencies regarding the subjects and their actions. However, your “self-deployment” upon arrival atthe scene without either a pre-planned affirmation by the primary investigator or a subsequent suggestion to do so, placed you in an untenable legal dilemma with regard to jurisdiction. By placing yourself in such a position, you bear a substantial measure of the responsibility forthe consequences,February 9, 2008 ‘+ Secondly, the aftermath of any officer involved shooting incident is surely one of the most difficult and stressful situations for police officers to deal with. This incident I'm sure was no exception. However, any officer, particularly an officer as well trained as your personnel record indicates, must understand that a primary directive for officers at any crime scene wolves the preservation of evidence. This is even more essential in an officer involved shooting incident investigation. In adding the piece of paper from your person in marking the area of the expended shell casing, you compromised the scene. You not only filed in preserving the scene, but also physically altered the scene by removing the center hubcap of the subject vehicle, ‘The center hubas you know was the point of impact ofthe 40 caliber round that you fired. I is important that you understand the ramifications of altering a crime seene in any manner. However more importantly itis critical that you understand the implications that one could draw from these circumstances considering your role as the subject of inquiry. Should th circumstances, as presented, been such, that one believed that the alteration ofthe scene was done purposefully; the matter would be dealt with much more zeal. ILis my assertion that this was an uncaleulated error in judgment and not a wanton disregard forthe integrity of the scene. A copy of this finding will be placed in your personnel record and serves as written notice of feprimand, Tn addition the department is in the process of reviewing your role as it pertains to firearms training, That is not to say that you will not remain a valued member of the firearms training staf. ‘The primary focus of such a review is to revisit your role in presenting policy. ‘This leter of reprimand will conclude Infernal affairs case # 2005-013. Should you have any questions please contact me at 391-6773 or #773,MEDFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT Professional Standards Division Internal Affairs Bureau Internal Affairs Case Investigation Number 2005-013 Section 1: Brief Overview of Complaint ‘On December 30" 2005 Chief Leo A. Sacco requested an inquiry by the Internal Affairs Unit, and the Shooting Investigation Unit, of the Medford Police Department, into the facts and circumstances surrounding an incident that took place at approximately 12:00PM on December 30" in the vicinity of Spring Street and Atherton Street in Somerville Massachusetts. The multi-agency operation involved Officers from both the Medford and Somerville Police Departments, in assisting in arranging a series of controlled deliveries of a known quantity of drugs (marijuana). These controlled deliveries were to be headed and administered by Inspectors of the United States Postal Service. The following pages explain the process of the administrative inquiry, summarize and distinguish the known facts from those facts in dispute, detail the statements of the participant subjects, as well as both police and other percipient witnesses, include relevant points presented upon interview of percipient witnesses, detail the rights afforded the subject participants, detail copies of pertinent departmental, and medical records where applicable, and contain references to pertinent evidence including videotape, photos of the scene, and any injuries sustained by the ‘subject particinants. The final sections outline the investigative conclusions and recommendations submitted in this matter based on appropriate rules, regulations, and policy and procedures of the Medford Police Department.Section 2: Summary of Subject Officer Reports * Officer Stephen A. Lebert (see attached) * Officer Frank Femino (see attached) Section 3: Summary of Subject Officer(s) Declaration of Rights * Officer Steven Lebert o Carey Rights Summary © Internal Investigation Rights Form (Art 12 MA Declaration of Rights / 5" Amendment) © Administrative Rights Summary * Officer Frank Femino o Carney Rights Summary © Internal Investigation Rights Form (Art 12 MA Declaration of Rights / 5" Amendment) ‘©. Administrative Rights Summary Section 4: Summary of Police Witness Statements * Somerville Police Department (Officers Reports) Sgt. Fallon Det. Richard Lavey Det. Daniel Rego Det. Kevin Shackelford Ptl. Timothy Mitsakis (Traffic Report) Pt. J. Slattery Jr. * United States Postal inspection Service * Postal Inspector Stephen Dowd + Postal Inspector Jay SternSection 5: Summary of Other Percipient Witness Statements: © Civilian © Ms. Betty Watson Section 6: Summary of Records by Category: A. Medford Police Department Records: 1.) Department worksheet for December 30" 2005 2.) CAD entry log 911 Center (.) Incident Incident # 5032018 09:28.33 hrs * Incident # 5032028 12:19.43 hrs 3.) CAD incident log Police Incident © Same as above 4.) Written report: (Commanding Officer) * Captain Michael DiChaira (see attached) 5.) Preliminary Investigation Reports: ‘* Medford Police Incident Report #5026730 «Lieutenant Vincent DiStefano Commander Shooting Investigation Unit (Firearms discharge) B. Somerville Police Department Records: * Somerville Police Incident Report #5042632 * Motor Vehicle Crash Report #5042632C. Medical Records: (pursuant to: December 30" incident only) * Officer Stephen A. Lebert (request on file) (Post-ineident physical check) D. Criminal Records: * Board of Probation checks: (on file) © Officer Stephen A. Lebert (see attached) © Officer Frank Femino (see attached) E. Surveillance and Electronic Evidence: Audio Tapes: (interviews) (on file) * Ptl. Stephen Lebert * Pt. Frank Femino Photos: © Sgt. William Murray F. Interviews: * Requests for interview * Interrogatory Summaries * Officer Admonttions o Ptl. Stephen Lebert o Ptl. Frank Femino G. Representative Sketch (Officer Interpretations): * Shooting Scene © Pil, Stephen Lebert ©. Ptl, Frank FeminoH. Massachusetts State Police Ballistician Report: © Sgt. David M. Cahill Section 7: Correspondence: + None Section 8: Media: + Medford Transcript January 5, 2006 (Brock Parker cnc.com) Section 9: Conclusion: © Captain Alan Doherty (Investigatory Summary) A. Preamble Please be advised that the formal internal request for inquiry registered by Chief Leo A. Sacco Jr. on December 30” 2005, with the office of Internal Affairs has been completed. The inquiry itself concerns the facts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of Detective Stephen Lebert and Detective Frank Femino during the day shift tour of December 30" 2005, The specific incident in question involved a multi-agency controlled delivery of a package believed to contain a quantity of narcotic substance to specific Medford, and Somerville, Massachusetts’ locations. The United States Postal Inspectors Office headed this multi-agency action with assistance from Medford and Somerville Police Departments. The following summary has been formulated by compiling and reviewing: departmental records, written reports, interviews with percipient witnesses, and other relevant evidentiary information, from available resources. (The details of the tactical operation are admittedly more delineated in the report of Lieutenant Vincent DiStefano filed January 17” and included in this file.) The focus of this report is to assess the effectiveness of the elemental issues attributed specifically to the operation of the initial controlled delivery in Medford and the subsequent second resulting surveillance in Somerville more particularly its’: planning, communication, supervision, jurisdiction, application of the Medford Police Department use of force policy, officer / civilian safety, scene integrity, and finally, agency deference.B. Statement of fact: On Friday, December 30" 2005 at approximately 9:00 AM, United States Postal Inspector Stephen Dowd came to the Medford Police Station and spoke with Detective Frank Femino. Inspector Dowd indicated to Detective Femino that he was contemplating a controlled delivery of a quantity of drugs (Marijuana) to an address in South Medford and subsequently a separate and distinct delivery to an address in Somerville Massachusetts. Upon information received by Detective Femino, concerning the details of the proposed operation, Captain Michael Dichiara, the administrative head of the Investigative Services Division, convened a meeting between Inspector Dowd and representatives of the Medford Police Department including Detectives Frank Femino and Stephen Lebert. At that meeting it was decided that the Medford detectives would assist the Postal Inspectors in the controlled delivery in Medford and arrange for their counterparts in Somerville to be alerted to engage their assistance in a subsequent delivery. At approximately 9:50 AM, the contingents headed by the postal authorities, made their way to 23 Alexander Avenue, Medford to attempt the planned controlled delivery, but were unsuccessful as no one answered the knock of Postal Inspector Dowd It was then decided by Postal Inspector Dowd that the contingent would continue to Somerville to attempt the second controlled delivery. The Somerville controlled delivery took place on Bedford St. at approximately 10:30 AM. Once again Postal Inspector Dowd led a group of Somerville Officers, with the two aforementioned Medford detectives playing a diminished role in assisting at the Somerville scene, Once again the delivery proved to be unsuccessful as no one answered Postal Inspector Dow's knock. Somerville units cleared the scene. Inspector Dowd indicated prior to leaving that it was his intention to once again attempt delivery to the Alexander Avenue location in Medford. The Medford contingent (Lebert and Femino) and the Postal Authorities (Dowd and Stern) returned to Medford, Upon arrival at the Alexander Avenue location Inspector Dowd once again assumed command. The roles of the officers had not changed from the earlier attempt. Inspector Dowd clad in a post office employee uniform would attempt delivery with Detective Lebert and Inspector Stern observing from across Alexander Avenue. Detective Femino and K9 Bruno would unassumingly walk up the street and pass the location, playing the area until the subject answered the door. Inspector Dowd was successful in delivering the package on the second attempt. A brief discussion ensued between the subject and Inspector Dowd. After beingadvised of her rights, the subject agreed to assist the postal inspectors in furthering the investigation by providing information and assisting in a subsequent controlled delivery of the package to the primary subject “Jef”. This delivery was contingent on the subject "Ms. Watson" contacting “Jeff” to arrange a meeting. Inspector Dowd requested the assistance of the Medford detectives in arranging for the controlled delivery in Somerville. “Jeff’ was contacted via Ms. Watsons’ cell phone, which after agreeing on a "meeting place" designated by “Jeff”, was then retained by postal Inspector Dowd Detective Lebert notified Somerville PD concerning the location of the progosed “meet”. Postal Inspector Dowd after placing the “package” in the trunk of Ms, Watsons’ vehicle followed her in his capped pick-up truck. The Medford detectives (Lebert and Femino) K9 Bruno, and Postal Inspector Stern followed in an unmarked Medford Unit. While en-route to the Somerville location, Watsons’ cell phone, now in the possession of Postal Inspector Dowd, rang with the LCD screen identifying the subject party Jeff as the caller. Inspector Dowd engaged his blue lights and pulled over Ms. Watsons’ vehicle. Inspector Dowd had Watson re-establish contact with "Jeff". During the conversation “Jeff” changed the original meeting place from Benton and Summer Streets to Atherton at Phillips Place. The information was conveyed from Inspector Dowd to the Medford contingent and Inspector Stern, Detective Lebert contacted Somerville PD and alerted “them” to the change in location. Upon arrival at the O'Brien funeral home in Somerville, Ms. Watsons’ vehicle pulled into the parking lot. A grey Mercury Sable occupied by two black males stopped at the intersection of Benton and Summer Streets. Both subjects in the grey mercury looked in the direction of Ms. Watson who then exited the parking lot and turned onto Summer Street. The vehicles proceeded down Summer Street to the intersection of Atherton Street and Phillips Place where they pulled to the fer right and stopped. Inspector Dowd had driven by the subjects and according to interviews of both Detective Femino and Lebert, indicated by radio to Postal Inspector Stern that the vehicles had stopped and that Ms. Watson had made contact with two black male subjects. The Medford undercover vehicle operated by Detective Lebert, and occupied by Postal Inspector Stern, Detective Femino, and K9 unit Bruno had stopped just north of Atherton ‘Street on Summer Street. Detective Lebert exited the drivers’ side and ‘went through the rear backyard of 165 Atherton Street in an attempt to get a better view of the subjects. Detective Lebert secreted himself on the easterly side of the home amongst the adjacent shrubbery to get a clear view. There were no communications at this point between any of the surveillance group. Detective Lebert indicated by interview that the Grey Mercury Sable was parked “against the island curb” on Phi Place just ‘south of the intersection at Atherton Street, The black Chrysler Sebring(Watson's vehicle) was parked on the opposite side of Phillips Place just north of the fire hydrant. Detective Lebert viewed the female subject (Wetson) go to the rear of her vehicle and attempt to retrieve the package from her trunk along with the black male passenger of the Mercury. The subects then went to the rear of the Mercury Sable and opened the trunk. Detective Lebert stated by interview that the female subject placed the package in the trunk. Detective Lebert indicated that he was unaware of the location of any other members of the surveillance team including Somerville PD at the time he made this observation. Once again there was no communication between the surveillance group. Detective Lebert felt obligated at that point to engage the subjects because he indicated by interview; “Ms. Watson looked directly at me” at one point, and as a result the black male subject in turn focused on the detective as well. Detective Lebert left the side yard at 165 Atherton Street, jumped the small picket fence, and traveled across the traffic island to the “front” of the subject vehicle (Mercury Sable). Detective Lebert identified himself by yelling * Police! Nobody movel” Detective Lebert had his badge displayed mid chest and clipped to his pull over vest. Detective Lebert again indicated by interview that he had still not seen or heard from any of the other officers assigned to the surveillance team. At that point Detective Lebert, now standing in front of the Mercury Sable, heard tne black male subject at the rear (trunk) of the vehicle yell “Go! Go! ". Detective Lebert viewed the second black male subject, the operator of the Mercury Sable, as his right hand came forward in a turning motion from tre back seat of the Sable to display a “shiny silver object”. The operator then accelerated the vehicle forward toward Detective Lebert. Detective Lebert yelled “Gun!” stepped back and to the right while drawing his service weapon. The vehicle continued toward the detective and the detective expended one round to stop the subject. Detective Lebert indicated by interview that he was firing at the subject to stop the threat to himsef’. The detective indicated that he believed he was in considerable danger from the vehicle and yet he was markedly more concerned about the object in the subjects’ right hand, which he believed was a weapon. The vehicle continued in a soutrerly direction down Phillips Place toward Spring Street and Somerville Avenue. Detective Lebert righted himself and pursued the vehicle on foot. The female and male subjects at the rear of the vehicle had run in a northerly direction toward Atherton Street where they were both immediately detained by Detective Femino and Postal Inspector Stern, The Mercury Sable subject vehicle had crashed into parked cars on Spring Street and came to rest at # 14-16 approximately 80 to 100 feet from the initial encounter, Detective Lebert ordered the operator out of the vehicle and detained the operator until Somerville units arrived shortly thereafter. The object held by the subject was subsequently identified as a silver cell phone.Somerville Police responded and secured the scene. Somerville Detective Danie! Rego charged the two male subjects (Andersen and Campbell) with Possession with intent to distribute Class D and conspiracy to violate the Controlled Substance Act. Campbell was also charged with Assault by Means of a Dangerous Weapon to wit: a motor vehicle. Somerville Sergeant Fallon took charge of Detective Leberts’ duty weapon on scene and subsequently transferred custody along with accompanying evidence to State Police Ballistician Sergeant David Cahill for analysis (see report). C. Assessment: 1. Planning: Planning a field operation can be complex, difficult, and at times a daunting task. Issues that change as a result of unforeseen contingencies can evolve quickly and underscore the need for constant planning end review. That being said when the task of planning an operation is taken for granted, and the perceived routine or familiarity with everyday tasks circumvents the essence of the planning function there is a risk of complacency, failure, and in a worst-case scenario, danger. The execution of this particular operation exemplifies the need for planning. The initial meeting on the morning of December 30" between Posial Inspector Dowd, Captain DiChiara, and Detectives Femino and Lebert, concerned the general roles discussed in any operation. The Medford detectives were to assume secondary roles in assisting the primary operation directed by the postal authorities. A subsequent discussion between the detectives and the postal inspectors were according to Medford Officers devoid of specific roles. Neither Medford detective indicated by interview that a tactical survey of the area, nor emergency contingencies relative to routes of travel, nearest medical facilities, nor possible escape routes of the subject(s) were discussed. When queried concerning the perception and origin of the perceived roles in the operation, the Medford detectives indicated that they did what they thought they needed to do to assist. When pressed for specifics both Lebert and Femino said they personally were the origin of their specific. roles. They believed their roles were open to their own interpretation. 2. Communication: ‘Communication is vital to the success of any police operation. It is even more crucial in a multi-agency operation. The base elements of communication in this operation can only be described as abysmal. The total lack of coordination with respect to communication in thisoperation is easy to pinpoint due to the fact that each agency involved can be very specific as to being uninformed and unprepared at various critical stages of this operation. The actions of individuals in circumventing open channels of communication with each other, communication centers of the cities involved, and between the affected units within the scope of the operation needlessly placed officers and civilians alike in unnecessary peril. It is rudimentary to have a contact individual or liaison for each and every involved law enforcement element. It is also elementary to maintain communication as to location and progress for safety sake. For the purpose of example | would cite the instance where Medford Detective Lebert conveyed necessary elements of the second delivery in Somerville through the main number to Somerville control resulting in a needless, cumbersome, bottleneck, in the flow of information to critical Somerville Police detective units. Planning for communication liaisons with advanced knowledge of the operation can be accomplished as easily as by creating talk groups with involved agencies utilizing Nextel communications and through attendance at pre-planned meetings. In this operation the “on scene” law enforcement elements represented by the United States Postal Authorities, and the detectives of the Medford Police Department couldn't maintain lines of open communications with each other to say nothing about a working relationship with a liaison from Somerville Police Department or their contemporaries in their respective agencies. There was no breakdown in communications. The operation was devoid of any effective lines of communication. This lack of preparation regarding communication along with other factors yet to be mentioned posed an unnecessary danger to field officers and civiians alike. }.. Supervision: Itwas clear from the outset that Medford detectives were directed by their superior Captain DiChiara to play a secondary, assisting, role in the controlled deliveries. This fact is particularly clear in looking at the role of Medford detectives in Somerville, for a jurisdictional void surely comes into play. It would be overly kind to state that supervision was lacking in this operation. It is clear that the Postal Inspectors underplayed their primary role and that Medford Detectives Lebert and Femino in tum overplayed their secondary assisting roles as specified by their superior, These field roles were not more vigorously enforced due to a lack of effective planning and a lack of leadership in the fed. I would be remiss if | did not address the issue of schedule in the timing of assignment for this operation. This operation was conducted 10on Friday of the last week of the calendar year. While under normal conditions this would not be a factor in questions of staffing. The level of staffing in all divisions is diminished in order to provide for use of vacation, personal and administrative days off allocation. This is not alluded to in order to excuse the conduct of the operation, merely to point out that staffing levels were not optimal and supervision was at a bare minimum level. Lastly, | would be equally remiss if | did not comment on the proficiency and the professionalism displayed ky Somerville Police Units that responded to the scene, particularly those supervisory units that assumed command immediately following the subjects’ detention. Sgt. Fallon and Detective Rego in particular deserve credit for exercising command and professionally managing the scene. Exigency: Emergency situations arise all the time when dealing with field operations. Exigencies that arise precipitously are dealt with in kind. However it is inconceivable that command officers involved in a field operation would further an exigency or create an exigency as a result of poor decision-making. The latter is what happened in this operation. Immediately subsequent to the successful controlled delivery in Medford the decision was made to have the willing subject contact the subject(s) of the continuing delivery in Somerville. This decision was critical in creating a time exigency that prohibited the Somerville Police from properly deploying personnel to set up a further surveillance on the secondary location in Somerville. As a result, the surveillance contingent committed forces to unfamiliar territory and were undermanned to conduct a proper and safe operation. A controlled delivery is just that; controlled. Once the primary investigator created the exigency in this operation, in a sense control was needlessly forfeited Jurisdiction One of the more troubling issues raised in revising this operation is the basic flaw inherent in many officers’ perception of the legal precedent concerning jurisdiction of the Medford detectives. Assisting in an operation, without the benefit of special jursdictional authority (ie. a sworn multi agency task force or other specially conveyed police powers), or without a statutory exception to established jurisdictional boundaries (i.e, fresh and continued pursuit), is at best; nonsensical, and at worst; dangerous. The interviewed Medford detectives although seasoned officers were not in fact seasoned detectives. Neither has dealt with jurisdictional issues in special circumstance as a matter ofcourse. Both officers when queried indicated their individual and collective belief that because the operation was lead by federal authorities that they were in effect acting under a special jurisdictional umbrella of authority. They have since realized what a precarious position this ill advised leap of faith put them in regarding jurisdiction or lack thereof. Its also troubling when looking at the totality of the circumstances involved in this operation to come away with a feeling of confidence in dealing with or relying upon others to exert jurisdiction in a operation so heavily scrutinized as in this operation where a firearm is discharged. Once again the lack of planning and role designation on the part of Federal authorities is apparent when the custody roles are questioned at the scene and the primary roles quickly become blurred and subsequently transposed with those of the supposed secondary or assisting officers. While the assertive role adopted at the scene by Detective Lebert can certainly be questioned if for nothing more than lack of jurisdictional standing, the lack of coordination and control at the scene is solely attributable to the primary investigators. Medford Police Use of Force Policy Applicatior The Shooting Investigation Team report filed by Lieutenant Vincent DiStefano on January 17" constitutes a complete vindication concerning the discharge of a firearm by then Detective Stephen Lebert. While | will defer to the Lieutenant and his specific area of expertise in his finding, | am uncomfortable without an appropriate caveat suggesting that despite the justification of the discharge in applying the policy; the proper planning, coordination, control, resource deployment, and actions at the scene may have greatly reduced any need for such lethal action. Lieutenant DiStefano in section 6 of his finding of fact indicates, “Detective Lebert was the only officer confronting two suspects". Such a delivery should never result in a lone officer confronting a single suspect to say nothing of multiple suspects. This safety issue alone is enough to provide questions as to the tactical deployment manifested in this operation. Its clear that Detective Lebert was in fear for his safety in looking at two dangers that presented themselves to him on the day in question. The first was the obvious rapid and sudden acceleration of he subject vehicle by the subject operator “directly at” Detective Lebert and the second instance manifested itself in the operator/subjects turning movement from over the front seat while possessing a "shiny object" in his right hand that the detective believed to be a gun. Either circumstance standing alone under the caveats explained in the policy would warrant the use of lethal force. It should be noted that detective 12Lebert by interview correctly delayed his initial reaction to fire his service weapon when he perceived the two non-threatening subjects standing to the rear of the subject vehicle to be in his direct line of fire. Detective Lebert by interview stated that the target of his intended discharge was the subject operator of the vehicle. It should be stated for the record and for the benefit of future training sessions that Detective Stephen Lebert is without question one of the most proficient officers with a firearm amongst the entire rank and file. The discharge in question, under the circumstances, impacted the vehicle some 6-7 feet from its intended target. Such a result should be indicative of just how difficult itis to hit a moving target under real time stressful conditions. The narrow focus authorizing the use of lethal force and fixing responsibility in abiding by existing policy under Section E (Moving vehicles) cannot and should not be understated. It is imperative that the lay officers understand completely this particular section of the policy. It may be beneficial and therefore necessary to explore expanding the use of force policy language on specific prohibited and accepted conduct within this procedural construct. Safety: It is clear from the circumstances previously alluded to that the initial decision to proceed to the secondary delivery in Somerville after successfully soliciting the help of the female subject was a decisive error in judgment. As a result the surveillance team was placed at a tactical disadvantage and the operation and its counterparts were placed in jeopardy. In addition, involved units of the Somerville Police department, as a result of a time exigency, were unable to ‘espond from a tactically advantageous position. A lone officer, approaching a dangerous situation with multiple subjects, on a crowded urban street, on a weekday at noon, can be clearly viewed by any police professional as an untenable recipe for disaster. Scene Integrity: One of the more disturbing items of relevance when looking at a ctitique of the Somerville shooting incident is a basic initial unintentional disregard for crime scene integrity. In the aftermath of the delivery at Atherton Street and Phillips Place, there were three distinct areas of interest. The first area was that of the initial delivery and firearms discharge on Phillips Place. The second was the impact area of the fleeing subject and the scene of the crash at 14-16 Spring Street. The third area of interest was the custody area of the second subject on Atherton Street. Itis clear that the specific location of the firearms discharge incident was a mystery to Medford Control and as a result to responding Medford supervisors and crime scene technicians.The supervisors were delayed for quite some time before arriving at the scene. This delay resulted in Detectives Lebert and Femino being the lone Medford officers on scene for a 20 to 30 minute period Detective Lebert by interview indicated that he circled the shell casing resulting from the discharge with a rock in an attempt to assist investigators. Detective Lebert also fixed a piece of paper that he had with him within that circle, Detective Lebert further compromised the integrity of the scene by removing the center hub at the resulting area of impact of the firearms discharge to the subject vehicle. When queried about this by interview then detective Lebert indicated that he was concerned that the bullet or fragments would be lost if towed. Detective Lebert seemed sincere in his explanation and was advised concerning these questionable actions. He was further advised regarding the open-ended perceptions attached to altering a shooting scene in any manner particularly when you are the subject of the resulting inquiry. While unintentional, there was a total disregard by detective Lebert for the integrity of the scene. These actions took place prior to the arrival of scene commander Sgt. Fallon of Somerville Police Department. Upon the arrival of controlling Somerville units and upon the assumption of command by Sgt. Fallon, the scene was cordoned off. As the officer involved in a shooting incident, detective Lebert was removed from the inner perimeter and his weapon was turned over to Sgt. Fallon. Somerville Police department did their collective best to preserve the scene from that point on. Detective Femino left the scene prior to the arrival of supervisory or technical units from the Medford Police department. When queried by interview as to his reasoning, the detective indicated that K-9 Bruno was agitated at the scene and he felt that under the circumstances that he should clear the scene and return to Medford police headquarters. Detective Femino was advised conceming the importance of supporting on scene officers, particularly an officer involved in the discharge of a firearm. K-9 Bruno could have been placed in the unmarked unit on scene until the arrival of appropriate support units. Detective Femino was accepting of this critique. Once on scene, Captain DiChiara, Lieutenant DiStefano, and Sergeant Murray, in conjunction with their counterparts from Somerville Police department conducted a preliminary investigation. Captain DiChaira filed a preliminary report immediately. Lieutenant DiStefano gathered information in conjunction with Sergeant Murray that became the basis for his report filed January 17" (see attached). 149. Media: An area of deep concern that became an issue in critiquing this operation was the article published in the Medford Transcript on January 5" of this year. In the article, “Cop shoots at drug dealers” by Brock Parker (cnc) (see attached), there are quoted statements made by the department press officer Lieutenant Paul Covino. These statements are attributed to Officer Stephen Lebert. The statements themselves, according to Officer Lebert upon inquiry, came from a casual conversation that took place in the basement gym area a few days after the incident. The statements as quoted by Lieutenant Covino are contradictory to the reports filed by Officer Lebert. When queried by interview, Officer Lebert indicated that the characterization of the events in the Medford Transcript were untrue. These contradictory statements had to do with the characterization of the events specifically related to the critical issue of when Officer Lebert drew his service weapon. The article quotes the Lieutenant as stating; “ He was running across the street to help make the arrest and the vehicle was coming towards him’...’He had his weapon in his hand when he saw the driver reach down. He raised his weapon and fired ‘one round and jumped out of the way of the car’. Officer Lebert vehemently denies this characterization. The officer stands by his original statement. | only bring this point to the forefront for the purpose of discussion. This article only points out the reason that Lieutenant Covino stated in the two prior paragraphs to the afore stated quotes, that there should be no corclusive comments made to the press concerning elements to be determined by an ongoing investigation. Any deviation from such a policy can result in inaccuracies and contradictions that can be counterproductive and sometimes fatal to a case of import.Section 10: Recommendation(s): Service Record: (on file) > (21 years) Exemplary Service: numerous commendations, citations, and letters from the community. > Similar Incidents: September 16 2005 Officer Involved shooting Incident Woodbine Rd @ Knollwood Ra. (See attached report by Lieutenant DiStefano of 10/24/2005) Disciplinary History (on file) > 1/20/86 POD (Lt. Andrew O'Brien) Failure to report for in service training > 1/21/86 Suspended for 5 tours (neglect of duty) Failure to investigate shots fired > 6/19/86 Suspended for 5 tours (neglect of duty) Failure to appear in court > 9/27192 Suspended for 2 tours (conduct unbecoming) responded on duty and acted improperly outside jurisdiction (City of Woburn) Disciplinary Action Plan 1) Officer Stephen Lebert (letter of reprimand) a. Altering the scene of a shooting incident investigation; and b. Subverting the verbal order of Captain Michael DiChiara by playing a primary role 16in an operation as opposed to the secondary assist role that was specified. 2) Officer Stephen Lebert (training assignment) a. Review of Officer Leberts primary role in delineating department policy as it relates to use of force. (There is no reason to believe that Ptl, Lebert could not continue in a role consistent with the physical application of firearms skills during range week.) * Policy or Procedural changes 1) 2) To subject the existing policy as it relates to Section XIll to scrutiny in order to explore ‘expanding the use of force policy language on specific prohibited and accepted conduct within this procedural construct. a. (Ie. Brookline PD Use of force policy particularly Section E (Moving or Fleeing Vehicles see attached) To explore and expand the language found attributable to the use and application of administrative leave in policy as it relates to shooting incidents. a. Including for example, resuming normal duties only after the shooting incident investigation team has submitted a favorable report; b. Exploring the use of administrative assignment at the discretion of the chief in lieu of administrative leave; c. To explore the use of an administrative review board (i.e. captains, division heads) briefed by the shooting investigation unit commander following any discharge of a firearm (excluding the provisions of Section XIII C Sub sec. 1 & 2 (animal/destruction) providing that such an act does not 7endanger human life or cause property unforeseen property damage. d. To modify existing language related to media (Article XIX section B) to better address the dissemination of information pertaining to shooting incidents by establishing language to emphasize the importance of reserving comment during an ongoing investigation 3) The development of a department protocol to deal with multi-agency operations that would outline specific areas of responsibilty as it relates to planning, communication, supervision, jurisdiction, and officer safety. The focus of such a plan would be to fix authorization and responsibility for procedural compliance and assure the delineation and separation of roles and responsibilities to better serve the overall operation. 18DATE OF REPORT: ya\3o|05 DEPT. RECORD NUMBER: 53 734 (@ NON-LETHAL FORCE ‘ANIMAL THREAT to PUBLIC SAFETY J EUTHANASIA 14 BEaE) AcD.£8) ‘co UNINTENTIONAL FIREARMS DISCHARGE qq LETHAT, FORCE, (14, DEAE) ATACDEAE OFFICER INFORMATION; (AT TIME OF INCIDENT) BADGE NUMBER: __\S"3 JASSIGNMENT: | FIELD SERVICES DUTYSTATUS: = @ ON a InvesTiGarrve seavices © oF © ApuanisTRATION © tno © private Dury Dera, © PLAINCLoTHES © omen, ADDRESS: vo! © CoorERATIVE © UNCOOPERATIVE BUTNOT ASSAULTIVE SASSAULTIVE BUTUSING PRESENTING A THREAT OF SERIOUS BODILY LESS THAN LETHAL FORCE HARM O8 DEATH joys no crypp: tafe __ os NO _EVIDEXCEDE: © Vos Boca og ann ft ONO ARRESTING OFF, (Canary Cte} INCIDENT INFORMATION: arE13[50_11ME\d02_ LOCATION: JWEATHER: = c1ouby @ sunny © moors 2 wo © ourpoors © sow © pay kor © wiger hxsmmes: © sunmcrs) BYSTANDERS) NONE 6 Wear /some "TREATED BY; — 3 ‘TRANSPORTED Ss Fansrone | S HOSPITAL, Ss a Ss RRUSDMEDAT, GS ‘MESSED BY | suraspictioN: MEDFORD @ OTHERMUNICIALSayncest le © STATE FEDERAL 5S INFORMATION: © NONE 1 0 a f\eyands Ass (¢ ) bP Rane Exwiwe too Wala che ¢ ) —____ 6 O'{PERPOLICE ONPICERS PRESENT: (ATTME OF INCDEND | ONONE L tee arent 3 | wm Postal THs ee 2 4Aa IE ety ni dowtmiive vaca ae sacra on nua IMPACT WEAPON. ooo0 00 -0@ 00 0080 00 [USHHICATION: Soipreserve the bible peace ‘To prevent she eonsmission ofa offense ro prevent susie onset nied inf 70 ovetonme nesistanos hy the set est ro safely conduct search andlor oie To prevent escape Som eustaly inlet Tndefe of etic aginst ou vatge JUSTIPIEATION: peace 8 sty rs ey sttdnoghl ause dete cr serous Bol hari i= Ae oe ete tec sig. vanh es eal ee er doe a WEAPONS (type): co oleoresin capsicum < baton <> K9 cy Tear gas ap firearm c Alternative weapon © Privately Owned—> One Sapte we Dept. issue Description: / (all that apply) Livensings we Issuing City/Town, WesCene) Wetlned | Make Sho Mode tO cat_W0_ ser#_C443 FIDE |SUBMISSION AND REVIEW: SUBMITTED BY: he Su ghen. ‘Reporting Ofer Sinat) REVIEWED B APPROVED BY: tive narrative report ofthe above described incident may be requested of teeping with Medford Police Department Policy andthe Cade ther ingury regarding this mater. HRI Saves Siperino ig — | - Reporting Officer (alia)“ MEDFORD POLICE Detective Unit Se isan Sir: Acting on information received from U.S postal inspectors myself and inspector Femino responded to the area of #23 Alexander Ave. At this location Postal inspector delivered a package to Betty Watson see D.R # 502730. After hand delivering this package the postal inspector opened this package and revealed approximately 5-6 pounds of C/S (D) marijuana. At this time Ms. Watson stated that the box did not belong to her that it belonged to a man by the name of Jeff. Ms. Watson then made a phone call to this party Jeff, who stated that he would pick up the box in Somerville. Myself and Inspector Femino then notified Somerville inspectors that a transaction would take place in their city We then responded to Somerville along with Postal inspectors and Ms, Watson Ms. Watson came to a stop at the comer of Atherton St, @ Phillips PL. I then exited my unmarked unit and walked through the rear yard of # 65 Atherton St. to the front of this house to assist postal inspectors in the apprehension of possible suspects. then witnessed a small silver M/V. occupied by two black males ,one driving and the other was the front passenger. This m/v stopped on Phillips PL. The passenger exited and went to the rear of Ms.Watson’s m/v where Ms. Watson removed the box containing the e/s and walked over to the silver mv/v along with the black male , at this point the black male then took the box and placed it into the trunk of the silver m/v. At this time I emerged from the side of # 65 Atherton St, and crossed the front lawn over the island and onto Phillips PL. I stopped in front of the silver m/v .[ now had my badge around my neck in plain view and made my presences known “I Yelled POLICE NOBODY MOVE”’.At this point the black male standing at the rear of the silver m/v began to yell “GO GO” the driver of the silver m/v then accelerated forward spinning its tires directly at me. At this point the silver m/v began to move forward directly at me, the driver was looking directly at me. At this point fearing for my life I began to back away from the on coming m/v As I backed I noticed that the driver had a silver object in his right hand an object I believed to be a weapon I then yelled “GUN” and drew my service weapon fearing for my life and the lives of others I fired one round at the driver of the m/v as it continued at me still accelerating. The m/v then swerved past me and turned on to Spring St. I then observed this m/v swerve out of control and strike two parked m/v’s.It came to rest in front of #14 Spring St. I then ordered the driver to drop what he had in his tight hand,In doing so he revealed a silver cell phone. Both parties were taken into custody by Somerville Police and U.S Postal Inspectors. Resge kisly selodled Page | of 1 Pe Gah GEN 53MEDFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT INFORMATIONAL NEWS REPORT DATE OF EVENT: TIME OF EVENT: REPORTED BY: 12/30/05 12 Noon Investigative Services Div. LOCATION: NATURE OF INCIDENT: Spring St. @ Somerville Ave., Somerville ABDW/Dnug Arrest Weapon Discharge DETAILS: At the above date and time Somerville /Medford at the request of U.S, Postal Police interdicted a drug shipment destined for Medford and Somerville. The interdiction occurred in the vicinity of Spring Street and Somerville Ave. in Somerville. While assisting with the arrest one of the suspects attempted to run a Medford Officer with motor vehicle. The officer fired a single shot at the suspect striking the vehicle. The suspect’s vehicle struck several parked motor vehicles hefore the suspect was subdued. No injuries were reported at the scene, ‘Two unidentified suspects were taken into custody at the scene by Somerville Police. ‘The entire incident is under investigation by the respective agencies, No further in! shiwn medfordtrenscript.com . Cop shoots at drug dealers By Brook Parker confignted the woman about the _ towards the pasgenger’s side, tpeier@inccom |. package, which contained 10 ”'- “He was running @oro3s thes ‘pouinds of itatijuaia, police said,, street to help make the arrest and fA Medtord cop fred (00 the woman nd poe she was the vite was eo sa whe ne Ce eeneeoy pate upposédiocallammsbeknew as him,” Covin ea. “He had bis Sete haved ocags epee warn inhalant ee eu ueaed 17 poo 2 2 tat he ws eed fb ivr reach own. lest Po © oF” sexu ameeting fo deliver the{dope his weapon and fired ohe round “The cop's ule ack the - Betton Roan Somer ‘and jumped out ofthe wi ofthe i ine ‘Woinan t setup ear Meets See Eee er on the meting "police couldentch Covino said the objett the Seg Sut ud raced nto 4 WOU, doug dealer m the ° iver was reaching fo tne parked car while trying (0 tum, re ‘aut fo be a cell phone.“ + Bais Pitman Steet, polis sai, ‘At about 11:23 fim, the dnig He added the officés is on a fastto got” deal wasset round Belmont Sreet trative leave, pending thé ~ any ike him that they couldn't Whea police spotted the Sable- results ofthe investigation. Hae eee vehicle.” said. being driven, by Camipbell. The... ‘The iver ofthe cag, Adelson Sonnerlle Pole Lt-Paul Upton... Won met Campbell and Ande reportedly wied to flee Gn foot, STEW abd dr deen #00. 0n Spring Stet, where she, ut was enue by pol 21d Roger Cattipbell, 31 of New, Yor, ‘handed over the tugs, police said. Addition to the drug cliarges, NAV Al Sean Arierspn,'90, of Campbell and Anderson put the Campbell is also being ized eld wer thea cath et naiuanain he fhe Sable’ with assault and battery with Si aanies of potssaion Dolibesaid. °°? "Te 5. Yedanerous weapon (ie S4ble) of a Class D substance with the _ Medford Police Detective » and reckless operation of & vehi intent to distribute, (Stephen, LeBert then approached cle. ee "The trig bist, just before noon the Sable and showed hts badge, "After the arrest, Sombryille “Faiiy, Dec, 30, was initiated police records sated. LeBert later’ Police also delivered the second by the US, Postal Service after tid he heard Anderson shoul “z0, package of pot to the home at 6 postal detectives intercepted two, 1070 Carptell wh tthe gag Bedford St, a all it 163, ‘Post Office Detectives contacted shorty afterit passed him. ‘The package con Mediond and Somerville Police MedfordPolce Lt Paul Covino pounds of marijuana, police sid, because the packages were sti e could net comment on the and the recipient, whose name iddressed to 6 Bedford St. in officerinvolvedintheshootingdie has not been released, sid he Somenilieand!?3 Alexander St in Wanongoingintemal investigation wag supposed to deliver the Mediord,polcesid, _—~=«weing conducted by Medford , package to a man named Jeff, He ‘Medford Police and Post Office Paice Capt. Alan Dobatty. then identified a picture of electives delivered one of the Covino confirmed the circum- Campbell a the man be Knew a8, ‘packages to the Medford address stances surrounding the shooting, ..Jefl, police records ' {st iday moming, anda woman, but stidthe officer involved pulled — Medford Transcript editor. ‘whose name has not been released, his weapon after reportedly seeing Nell Escobar Coal. Signed forthe package. Police hen the. tiver-of the Sable reach edo his repo satis awCONFIDENTIAL To: Chief Leo A. Sacco Jr. Chief of Police Medford Police Department From: Lieutenant Viacent M, DiStefano OLLC. - Firearms Shooting Investigation Unit Ce: Captain Kenneth DiBlasi Commander ~ Field Services Division Captain Michael DiChiara Commander ~ Investigative Services Division Captain Alan Doherty Commander — Professional Standard Division, Subj.: Firearm Discharge / DR #5026740 Case #2005/02 Detective Stephen LeBert 12/30/2005 — 1200 hours Spring Street @ Somerville Avenue Somerville, Massachusetts Date: January 17, 2006 Sir, After careful investigation and review of the reports submitted regarding the firearm discharge by Detective Stephen LeBert on December 30, 2005, I respectfully submit the following report. SUMMARY OF INCIDENT. ‘On December 30, 2005 at approximately 12:00 p.m. at the request of the U.S. Postal Police, the Somerville and Medford Police were asked to interdict a drug shipment destined for Medford and Somerville. Medford detectives Stephen LeBert and Frank Femino were given the assignment. The detectives responded to 23 Alexander Avenue in Medford to meet Postal Inspector Stephen Dowd. The package was previously examined and hit on by a K-9 at the Los Angeles International Airport. It was re-examined and hit on by Medford Police K-9 Bruno on December 30, 2005. Upon the detectives arrival Inspector Dowd attempted to deliver the package addressed to Betty Watson, 23 Alexander Avenue. Apt. #1 but was unsuccessful. The inspector then requested thatDetectives LeBert and Femino assist him to the Somerville address on an identical package addressed to Glenford Reid, 6 Bedford St., Apt #5 Somerville, MA. The second package was also hit on by Los Angeles and Medford Police K-9(s). The inspector was unsuccessful at the Somerville address and suggested on the way back te Medford to re- attempt delivery at 23 Alexander Avenue. On the second attempt at Alexander Avenue, Inspector Dowd was successful in delivering the package to Betty Watson. The inspector identified himself and was given verbal consent by Ms, Watson to enter her dwelling and to open the package whereupon approximately 10 pounds of compressed marijuana was recovered, Detectives LeBert and Femino were also inside the dwelling at this time with a second U.S. Postal Inspector, Jay Stern. Ms, Watson agreed to cooperate with the investigation and state she was accepting the package for a friend of hers named “Jeff”. She did not know his last name, Ms. Watson placed a call on her cell phone to Jeff’s cell phore and asked him how he was going to retrieve his package. Jeff instructed Ms. Watson to drive the package to Somerville and meet him near the O”Brien Funeral Home near the comer of Benton and Summer Street. Detectives LeBert and Femino then notified Somerville detectives that a transaction would take place in their city. ‘The package was placed in the trunk of Ms. Watson's vehicle and she was then followed to Somerville by Detectives LeBert, Femino and Inspector Stera in an unmarked Medford Police Unit. Inspector Dowd was following in a separate vehicle. Ms. Watson’s vehicle parked in the parking lot at the funeral home where a grey Mercury Sable containing two black males stopped at the intersection of Benton and Summer Street. They were both looking in the direction of Ms. Watson, The vehicle was bearing ‘New York license plates. Ms. Watson then exited the parking lot in her vehicle and turned right onto Summer Street. Detectives LeBert and Femino followed Ms. Watson's vehicle to the corer of Atherton Street @ Phillips Place. Detective LeBert then exited his vehicle and walked through the rear yard of 65 Atherton Street then moved to the front of the house where he spotted the grey Mercury Sable occupied by the two black ales stopped 02 Phillips Place. ‘The passenger of this vehicle exited and went to the rear of Ms. Watson’s vehicle ‘where Ms. Watson removed the box containing the controlled substance and walked back to the grey Sable with the black male. At this time the black male took the box and placed it into the Sable’s trunk. Detective LeBert then emerged from 65 Atherton Street, crossed {he front lawn over the island onto Phillips Place and stopped in front of the suspect vehicle, Detective LeBert identified himself as a police officer verbally by yelling, “POLICE NOBODY MOVE" and his badge was clipped on the front middle pocket of his pull-over jaccet. The passenger who was standing in the rear of the vehicle yelled to the driver, “Go Go"! The operator of the Sable accelerated forward spinaing its tires directly at Detective LeBert. Detective LeBert stated the driver had a silver object in his right hand which he believed to be a weapon, Detective LeBert shouted “Gun”, stepped back, drew his service weapon from its holster and fired one round at the driver of the Seble, striking the suspect vehicle in the rear wheel (driver’s side) as it continued to accelerete in Detective LeBert’s direction. The suspect vehicle then swerved by Detective LeBert onto Spring Street, continued to swerve out of control and struck two parked vehicles coming to rest in front of 14/16 Spring Street. Detective LeBert ordered the driver to drop what he hadin his right hand, revealing a silver colored cell phone. Both suspects were taken into custody by the Somerville Police. The suspects were searched for weapons revealing an 8” folding knife. Somerville Police Sergeant David Fallon was dispatched to the crime scene at 12:20pm. Sergeant Fallon took control of the scene. Sergeant Fallor notified the Somerville Police Day Shift Commander, Lieutenant Frank Kelley. Lieutenant Kelley notified the State Police CPAC Unit. Sergeant Fallon took control of Detective LeBert’s service weapon, (Smith & Wesson Model 4006 TSW, Serial #VJC6963). Also taken was ‘one magazine containing eleven (11) rounds of ammunition. The weapon and magazine ‘were tuned over to State Police Sergeant David Cahill, State Police Ballistics Section. ‘Also assisting on the scene were Somerville Detectives Rego, Shackelford, Lavey, and Somerville Patrol Officer Slattery. (Marked patrol car 183) FINDINGS OF FACT © Section 1: Definition Not Applicable * Section 2: General Considerations Detective Stephen LeBert’s actions were in compliance with the spirit and purpose of the Medford Police Department’s Use of Force Policy and Procedure ‘No.2004-5 (Issued / Effective Date 10/17/2004) * Section 3: Training and Qualification Detective Stephen LeBert is a certified Firearms Instructor for the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Training Council and was last certified and qualified on April 18, 2005 at the M.C.1.T.C. facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts. © Section 4: Security and Maintenance of Firearm The State Police Ballistician’s report indicates that Detective LeBert’s weapon was in good working order. * Section 5: Pointing Firearm Detective LeBert was in a situation involving the strong possibility of great danger. Detective LeBert believed the silver object in the suspect’s hand was a ‘weapon and the suspect accelerated his vehicle, spinning his tires and proceeded toward him, Detective LeBert feared for his life and the safety of the community. * Section 6: Discharge of Firearm Detective LeBert was assisting the United States Postal and Somerville Police in a drug shipment originating from Los Angeles International Airport. At the time of the firearms discharge, Detective LeBert was the only officer confronting two suspects. He verbally announced that he was a police officer and ordered the suspects not to move. Detective LeBert believed the driver of the suspect vehicle was pointing a weapon in his direction and accelerated the vehicle toward him. Detective LeBert feared for his life and the safety of the community.Section 7: Suspicion of Crime Detective LeBert was assisting the United States Postal and Somerville Police Department interdicting a drug transaction. Section 8: Warning Shots and Signals ‘No waming shots or signals were fired Section 9: Permissible Weapons and Ammunition The Ballistics report states that Detective LeBert’s discharged weapon was his department issued SMITH & WESSON model 4006TSW semi-automatic pistol, serial number VJC 6963 submitted with one magazine and (11) live cartridges. One shell casing found at the scene was standard department issue. See attached report submitted by Sergeant David M. Cabill, Massachusetts State Police Firearms Identification Section. Section 10: Reporting of Firearm Discharge Detectives LeBert and Femino verbally notified Captain Michael DiChiara, Commander of Investigative Services Division of the discharge, who notified Captain Alan Doherty, Commander of Professional Standards Division, Lieutenant Vincent DiStefano, OIC Firearms Shooting Investigation Unit and Detective Sergeant William Murray. Somerville Police Sergeant David Fallon, Patrol Shift Supervisor, secured Detective LeBert’s firearm at the scene and later transferred it to Sergeant David M. Cahill, Massachusetts State Police Firearms Identification Section, Detective LeBert submitted a written report on January 10, 2006 and a Department Use of Force Report on December 30, 2005. Section 11: Investigation of Firearm Discharge Captain Michael DiChiara, Investigative Service Commander, responded to Somerville Police Headquarters, Lieutenant Vincent DiStefano, OIC Firearms Shooting Investigation Unit and Detective Sergeant William Murray responded to the shooting scene for photographs and preliminary measurements. RECOMMENDATIONS After careful review of all officer and witness reports, I find that Detective Stephen LeBert’s discharge was justified. There is no evidence or supporting, facts at this time to conclude otherwise. T also find that there was substantial compliance with all the relevant provisions of the Medford Police Department’s Policy and Procedure(XI CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE) Section A -Every Medford Police Officer is authorized to use deadly force only when there is no less drastic means available to defend himself or another from unlawful attack which he reasonably perceives is an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury. NO. 2004-5 / Effective / Issue Date 10-17-2004 (XIII PROCEDURES) Section E ~ Moving Vehicles ~ Police Officers shall not fire at or from a moving vehicle except for the following: ‘When firing at or from a moving vehicle is necessary to neutralize a threat, as provided in Section XI, officer’s focus shall be to disable that person presenting the threat and not the vehicle of which he/she is an occupant) NO. 2004-5 / Effective / Issue Date 10-17-2004 At the time of the firearms discharge, Detective LeBert was the only officer confronting two suspects. Both Detective Femino and U.S. Postal Inspector Stern heard Detective LeBert verbally identify himself as a police officer and ordered both suspects not to move. Both Detective Femino and Inspector Stern were around the comer of the shooting scene at this time, Detective LeBert was wearing his badge in plain view on his jacket. Detective Femino also stated he heard Detective LeBert yell out “GUN” before the shot was fired. Detective LeBert thought the silver object in the driver’s hand was a ‘weapon being pointed at him as the driver accelerated his vehicle toward him. Respectfully Submitted, DA Lvied? 2D Las Lt. Vincent M. DiStefano O.LC. Firearms Sho« Investigation UnitQYartnentof Stale Botte Fivociums Identification Section 59 Hone Pond Road wren Sudbury, Massachiiselts 01776 KERRY HEALEY J 3, 2006 incraneyrcovenvoR ipa 3s28 o OPY EDWARD A. FLYNN COLONEL THOMAS GROBBINS Captain Charles Femino Somerville Police Department Dear Sir; (On Friday Décember 30, 2005 I responded to the Somerville Police Department in regard toa Police Officer involved shooting, the following evidence was recovered and to this section for examination, Description: 1-1 40 S&W caliber SMITH & WESSON inodel 4006TSW séini-sutomatic pistol, sevial number VIC6963 1-2 Ono magazine for ite’ 1-1 with eleven (11) 40 S&W caliber live cartridges head stamp “WINCHESTER 40 saw" 1-3 One 40 SAW caliber disthanged cartridge case, head stamp “WINCHESTER 40 S&W” 1-4 Spent Projectile fragments weighing 132.5 grains ‘Ant examination of item 1-1 revealed it to have a barrel length of 4 inches and a general rifling system of six lands and six grooves witha left hand twist. A test firing was conducted using four of the submitted live cartridges, no malfunctions were noted, The trigger pull measured 9,5 to 11.5 pounds in double action and 5 to 6'pounds in single action. As aresult of physicei and microscopic examination of the evidence against the test specimens itis my opinion that: AJ Item 1-3 the 40 SRW caliber discharged cartridge case was fired by item 1-1 ,40 S&W ‘model 4006TSW semi-autoniatic pistol, serial number VIC6963, 1 SMITH &WESSON B/ Item 1-4 spen projectile fragmenis were too badly damaged to make any identification, No further examination will be conducted unless requested. Respectfully Submitted Dad Sergeant David M, Cahill Firearms Identification Section Srcellence on Pervice Through Quality BolicingH H i #16 OM <4 Ta 7. Xs 967. Le” HURT rae 3 g s| A Lowes | seo ene Aor oan SOMmeRviLE WE NoT To SCALE PHATOGRAPAS AVAILABLE J9 V. DiSteFann