“Presently the conduct of police in this country has become a focal point in the media, some facets justifiable and some misplaced. In this maelstrom of controversy, the integrity of police reports can’t become questionable.”
On October 16, 2017, Massachusetts State Police trooper Ryan Sceviour arrested Alli Bibaud, daughter of Judge Timothy Bibaud, who presides over the drug court in that district. She had been placed under arrest after crashing her car, and she was charged with operating her vehicle while intoxicated and high.
Trooper Sceviour was ordered to delete “negative and derogatory” statements in his arrest report and was told that if he refused, he could be fired. The reason he was given for this order was that the statements in the report alarmed the head of the State Police, Colonel Richard McKeon, and his command staff.
The sections that were removed from the report addressed the fact that the judge’s daughter had a “heroin kit” in her possession, that she stated that she had performed oral sex on men for heroin in the past, and that she then offered the trooper sex in lieu of being charged. Any mention that she was the daughter of a judge was also stricken. Trooper Sceviour and the sergeant who approved the original arrest report were both reprimanded, and the statements were removed.
Ultimately, Trooper Sceviour filed a lawsuit against the Massachusetts State Police (MSP), which brought the issue to light in the media. The initial MSP response was to condone their actions by issuing this statement to the public:
Due to further pressure from the media on this issue, on November 10th, Colonel McKeon resigned, followed by the resignation of MSP Deputy Superintendent Francis Hughes on November 14th.
“The revision consisted of removal of what the colonel and senior commanders felt was sensationalistic and inflammatory directly quoted statements that made no contribution to proving the elements of the crimes with which she was charged.”
Due to further pressure from the media on this issue, on November 10th, Colonel McKeon resigned, followed by the resignation of MSP Deputy Superintendent Francis Hughes on November 14th.
In the public’s eye, the alteration of police reports and omission of facts in government documents is corrupt and unethical conduct. One doesn’t have to ponder very hard to come to the conclusion that this type of behavior is just wrong. When a witness or a police officer takes the stand, they swear under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This can’t be twisted to include telling partial, incomplete truths to protect certain elite status individuals.
The MSP command staff publicly responding with a statement attempting to justify their conduct demonstrates just how out of touch they are. Ultimately, they were unable to sway the public to perceive their actions as justifiable. This subversion resulted in the resignations of the two highest-ranking officers in the MSP.
In the public’s eye, the alteration of police reports and omission of facts in government documents is corrupt and unethical conduct.
But this issue of altering police reports is not an isolated incident. Altering police reports appears to be a common practice in some police departments. Since the early 1990s, when police departments turned away from hand-written reports and modernized with all documentation being computerized, the ability to alter initial police incident and arrest reports became readily available.
Police reports written by arresting officers are submitted to supervisors for approval, where they have the ability to alter the report to correct grammar or spelling errors, and in some cases, add necessary supplementary information on the computer. At least, this was the original intent. As time went on, in some departments it became commonplace for supervisors and high-ranking officers to alter reports to make them sound better from their personal perspectives.
Because this practice has been in place for years, particularly in many areas of Massachusetts, State Police felt completely comfortable ordering the altering of Sceviour’s report.
I personally experienced this during my time as an officer many times. I found after submitting arrest reports I had written that my narrative was altered by supervisors who thought the case would be strengthened by adding additional elements to support the charged crime even though they were not there. My reports presented strong probable cause with articulated facts, yet supervisors felt emboldened to add their own version of events, whether it happened or not.
But from speaking with officers who are still on the job, they explain that some defense attorneys are starting to catch on to this practice
You may ask why didn’t I complain about this, but after seeing what happened to Trooper Sceviour, you have your answer. However, every time I appeared in court for a case and was on the stand testifying, I was always hoping a defense attorney would ask me, “Officer, did you write this report?” to which I would have to answer, “Not all of it.”
I’ve been retired several years now, and I was never once asked this while under oath. But from speaking with officers who are still on the job, they explain that some defense attorneys are starting to catch on to this practice, and they now question officers on whether or not they wrote the reports submitted with their names on them.
Presently the conduct of police in this country has become a focal point in the media, some facets justifiable and some misplaced. In this maelstrom of controversy, the integrity of police reports can’t become questionable.
Hopefully the demise of Colonel McKeon may help end this unsavory practice.
