• Report: #77749

Complaint Review: Andover Police Department

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Thu, January 22, 2004
  • Updated: Thu, April 01, 2004

  • Reported By:Boston Massachusetts
Andover Police Department
32 North Main Street Andover, Massachusetts U.S.A.
  • Phone: 978-475-0411
  • Web:
  • Category: Police

Andover Police Department, Town Of Andover Massacusetts Andover Police Department is Framing Citizens for Bogus Crimes Andover Massachusetts

*Consumer Comment: Shame on the Andover P.D. ..Do the right thing and defend yourselves.

*Consumer Comment: Andover PD = Jackbooted Nazis!

*Consumer Comment: EDitor's Comment: Andover Police Attempt to Circumvent Due Process and Abuse Civil Rights

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

Andover Police Frame Man.

Read about the cover-up in the Eagle-Tribune here:

http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20001229/LN_002.htm

The andover Chief of Police is hilarious as he states that they were using helicopters to search for this man to make sure he was safe. What a schmuck!

Friday, December 29, 2000

Defense lawyer: Fugitive still in hiding out of fear

By Shawn Regan
Eagle-Tribune Writer

ANDOVER -- The attorney for fugitive John J. Shaughnessy says police "made up" a story that his client resisted arrest and ran from officers last week, an incident that led to an all-out manhunt by local police, dogs and a state police helicopter.

"Mr. Shaughnessy called me in a very emotional state the night the 'manhunt' story ran in the newspaper (Dec. 20) saying the police never told him he was under arrest," Methuen attorney Robert C. Leblanc said. "They told him they weren't going to let him drive the car, but that since he lived about a half-mile away, he could walk home."

Mr. Shaughnessy, 24, was pulled over by police on Dec. 19 in his green Cadillac El Dorado for not having a second license plate on the front of his car, police said. A computer check revealed Mr. Shaughnessy's license was suspended and that he was wanted by Newburyport District Court on a default warrant related to motor vehicle charges, police said.

Officer Peter J. Reming said Mr. Shaughnessy "pushed away" from him as he attempted to arrest him and place him in handcuffs. Mr. Shaughnessy then fled into the woods, Officer Reming said.

Police Chief Brian J. Pattullo discounted as "ridiculous" Mr. Leblanc's allegation that officers fabricated an escape story.

"I stand by the actions of my officers 100 percent," Chief Pattullo said. "Attorney Leblanc is questioning the integrity of the department, but I question the integrity of him and his client. I suggest he convince his client to turn himself in to Lawrence District Court or the Andover Police Department immediately."

Chief Pattullo said Mr. Shaughnessy, of 14 Osgood St., is wanted on charges including assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, possessing a dangerous weapon, driving a motor vehicle with a suspended license and failure to display proper license plates.

Mr. Leblanc did not report Mr. Shaughnessy's Dec. 20 phone call to police, but said he is only obliged to contact police if he believes a client is about to break the law.

"I advised him to turn himself in," Mr. Leblanc said. "I volunteered to go with him to the police station, but he's scared to death. I keep hoping he's going to call and tell me he's ready to come in, but he believes he's being set up."

Mr. Leblanc alleges that police let Mr. Shaughnessy go, but then reconsidered and went after to him. The situation was escalated to "a whole new level," Mr. Leblanc believes, when the state police unexpectedly intervened.

"I believe the local police planned on quietly going back after him without making a big deal about it," the attorney said. "But when the state police showed up, they made up the story about him escaping."

Chief Pattullo confirmed local police did not call the state police for help.

"The state police heard on the radio that we were after someone," the chief said. "They called us to say they were nearby on the Merrimack River and could help out. They were on the scene very quickly."

The chief said officers searched homes in the area and the banks of the Merrimack River because they believed Mr. Shaughnessy may have tried to cross the river to escape police.

"The extensive search was as much to make sure he was all right as it was to catch to him," the chief said.

Mr. Leblanc said that local police are "after" Mr. Shaughnessy for what he allegedly knows about a string of robberies in Andover.

"After the police illegally interrogated Mr. Shaughnessy a week earlier (Dec. 12), a detective told me 'don't worry, we're not interested in what your client did, just what he knows," Mr. Leblanc said.

When Mr. Shaughnessy was arrested by Andover Police on motor vehicle charges Dec. 12, Mr. Leblanc alleges detectives subjected Mr. Shaughnessy to an "unconstitutionally inquiry."

"A detective called me to tell me they had my client in custody," Mr. Leblanc said. "He said they wanted to question him about a some break-ins in Andover. I said sure, after I talk to him, we'll talk to you and try to answer your questions. But then they went ahead and interviewed him for an hour without me."

Mr. Leblanc disputes all the outstanding charges against his client. He said he had cleared up the Newburyport default prior to his client being stopped by police Dec. 19, but that a default was mistakenly entered in the computer. As for the driving with a revoked license charge, Mr. Leblanc said Mr. Shaughnessy's driving license had been reinstated by the Registry of Motor Vehicles on Dec. 19.

"Mr. Shaughnessy had a letter in his car saying that the registry had reinstated his license," Mr. Leblanc said.

Chief Pattullo said there was no such letter in Mr. Shaughnessy's car, but declined to produce a copy of the police inventory saying "the case is coming up at trial."

Mr. Shaughnessy is also charged with possession of a dangerous weapon. Police said they confiscated two skull-shaped rings with protruding metal spikes from Mr. Shaughnessy's car. Officer Reming said Mr. Shaughnessy told another officer that he has used the rings to hit people. Officer Reming said police confiscated the rings from Mr. Shaughnessy's car after he fled on Dec. 19. Mr. Leblanc said police seized the rings from his client a week before, during the Dec. 12 interrogation.

Sara Lee
New York, New York
U.S.A.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 01/22/2004 07:36 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Andover-Police-Department/Andover-Massachusetts-01810/Andover-Police-Department-Town-Of-Andover-Massacusetts-Andover-Police-Department-is-Frami-77749. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Andover Police Department

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author 3Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Consumer Comment

Shame on the Andover P.D. ..Do the right thing and defend yourselves.

AUTHOR: Tim - (U.S.A.)

With a background in the theoretical bases of police science, coupled with the beginnings of a legal education, I read through the batch of reports on the Andover P.D. and presented my objective analyses of the reports (these are under a different report).

The crux of my rebuttals was that many things the police do might look, sound and smell like civil rights violations, but have nonetheless been sanctioned by the Supreme Court (usually, but not always, for good reason).

For example, the Supreme Court has stated that police are permitted to use deception in investigations. Usually, this leeway is used to tell a suspect that more is known about his crime than is actually known in order to extract a confession (i.e. "your buddy already told us what you guys did").

Apparently, the Andover P.D. has sought to use this leeway in an attempt to violate a couple of our civil rights that have not been abrogated.

The right of the people to air their grievances against government officials was so important to our founding fathers that they put it at the top of the list. (As a side note, there were originally over 200 proposed amendments to the Constitution. Only ten made the cut.)

Regardless of how I may feel about the validity of the original reports, the right of this individual (or individuals) to post them cannot be denied if we are to live in a society free from arbitrary and over-reaching police tactics. If "homeland security" means that we cannot call out the police for suspected constitutional violations then I think we'd be better off without it.

But I highly doubt that "homeland security" had anything to do with this. Ed was smart enough to recognize that this was a ploy designed to make him think he would be in criminal trouble if he didn't divulge the source of the report. God bless him for knowing his, and our rights and for taking a stand.

Maybe the Andover P.D. is ignorant of the fact that Ed opens up his forum (I know he hates it when you call it a forum, but I'm not talking about the worthless insult-fest kind of forum) to the complainors as well as the complainees. In the interest of our democratic and free society, the cornerstone of which is open public dialogue, I encourage the Andover P.D. to file a rebuttal rather than resorting to placing ridiculous demands on the Editor. They can start by answering a few questions for us:

1) In another report, I tried to defend some of the tactics used by your department that were being attacked on constitutional grounds (specifically Fourth Amendment violations in regards to prostitution stings). However, in noting your recent disregard for the First Amendment, I am not sure I should have been so quick to defend your acts. Now it's time for you to take the yoke. Are these reports grounded in fact? If not, what is the correct version of the story? If they are grounded in fact, how do you justify your actions, specifically in the purview of the Fourth Amendment?

2) Why would you resort to a legislative scheme that is supposed to protect our freedoms (homeland security) to abridge the rights of people who criticize your department? Do you feel that civilian review of police activity is something that needs to be combatted?

3) Why exactly are you interested in finding out who filed the original report? You have the full opportunity to defend yourself on this open forum. That would seem like the practical thing to do, if you were in the right, because the rest of us could see the other side of the story. Is it that there is no other side of the story, and you just want to shut this guy up? If that's the case, how exactly were you planning on going about that? Will you opt to stifle criticism through the litigation process (instead of simply defending your actions), or will you resort to "other" means? We have ample, undisputed evidence of a flagrant disregard for civil rights in your department, I can understand why the Editor would refuse to open one of his reporters up to whatever harm you may plan on inflicting.

Do the right thing and defend yourselves. I'm sure there are many fine officers in your department who do not want their reputations tarnished by being part of an organization that chooses to stifle criticism rather than confront it. As it stands, we have several undispuetd reports of serious civil rights violations. You know that they exist, yet you choose not to dispute them. Until you do, we can only accept them as true. And until that time, I can no longer stand by my earlier rebuttals defending your organization.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Comment

Andover PD = Jackbooted Nazis!

AUTHOR: William - (U.S.A.)

These Andover PD reports are amazing.

People dying mysteriously while in police custody, police setting up and stealing from citizens while supposedly "doing their duty", and now this poor guy gets abused.

Using "Homeland Security" to try to obtain information about those exposing the corruption. This bunch of strong-arms sounds more like they want information for retaliatory purposes. Then they could send out the SWAT teams and helicopters against posters at this forum. Sounds like that would "make their day".

Kudos to the editor of this site for getting the FBI involved. I hope he will keep us updated on this issue. Something is very rotten in the state of Massachusetts.

The citizens of Andover need to be filing charges against these jackbooted thugs as threats to the citizens of that town.

The entire Andover Police Department needs to be studied under a microscope and DNA tests done to see if they are all descendants of Nazi war criminals!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Consumer Comment

EDitor's Comment: Andover Police Attempt to Circumvent Due Process and Abuse Civil Rights

AUTHOR: EDitor - (U.S.A.)

Following the posting of this series of reports, the Andover police department contacted Rip-off Report and attempted to obtain the identity of the individuals who filed these reports. The representatives of the police department lied and said that they needed the information so they could investigate the allegations and when I asked for additional details was told that this was a Homeland Security matter. I then told them that I would only deal with the FBI and reported this incident with the Andover police department to the FBI.



We believe that the Andover police crossed the line in their use of police deception in an attempt to abrogate the civil rights, of the individuals, who posted these reports, under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution, and that the FBI has the responsibility to investigate these crimes.



Further, the abuse of the Homeland Security Act by the Andover Massachusetts police department was especially odious, because it further erodes the confidence in our US law enforcement entities to protect the very freedoms the Act was designed to assist them that protection detail.



The main reason I am even taking the time to bother with this announcement is because it is illustrative of what we are up against and to what lengths we will go to help and protect you. In this particular case, as is true with every case, we did NOT divulge the identity of the individuals who posted these reports.



We also want to communicate to you all that we would never divulge this information, even if served with a subpoena for the information because we believe that we have a special journalistic protection under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution to protect our confidential sources (you) of information and our repository for that information, we would be willing to go to jail opposing an illegal subpoena.



Very Sincerely,



ED Magedson Founder, Rip-off Report

EDitor@RipoffReport.com

badbusinessbureau.com

www.ripoffreport.com



Don't let them get away with it.

Make sure they make the Rip-off Report!



We are not lawyers.

We are not a collection agency.



We are Consumer Advocates.

...the victims' advocate



WE are Civil and Human Rights Activists



We are a Worldwide Consumer Reporting News Agency

...by consumers, for consumers
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.



Ripoff Report Legal Directory