Sasson Turnbull Ryan & Hoose Experience. Dedication. Integrity. Howard S. Sasson Cynthia J. Turnbull 100 Main Street, 3rd Floor | Northampton, MA 01060 | www.strhlaw.com Luke Ryan re. 413-586-4800 | rax 413-582-6419 | evan. info@strhlaw.com David P. Hoose September 29, 2014 David Narkewiez, Mayor City of Northampton City Hall 210 Main St., Room 12 Northampton, MA 01060 CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT RE Re: Claim of Jonas Correia Dear Mayor Narkewiez: ‘Attomeys in our position customarily do not send municipal authorities detailed presentment letters setting forth the factual bases for their clients’ claims, The reason is straightforward: Experience teaches that municipalities rarely engage in substantive settlement negotiations unless or until a police misconduct case has been filed in court (because prospects for an early settlement generally are illusory). If a lawsuit is inevitable, a detailed disclosure of a plaintiff's litigation and trial strategy only serves to provide the municipal defendants with the opportunity to patch holes in their defense. In this case, we have decided to take a less conventional approach. ‘This claim letter on behalf of Jonas Correia lays our proverbial cards on the table. Our reasons for proceeding in this fashion are threefold. First, the most powerful evidence in our possession is a video which, to a certain extent, speaks for itself. What it shows cannot be changed. Second, all the participants in this event have already committed themselves to a version of events, Because the commitments were made in writing before the video came to light, it would be difficult - though not impossible - for participants to use any information they are about to receive to their advantage and Mr. Correia’s disadvantage. Finally, and most importantly, we believe that your administration has the capacity to engage in a meaningful dialogue that could help effect a resolution. This belief makes us cautiously optimistic that our client’s claims can be settled without protracted litigation with its attendant financial and other costs. A resolution could also serve as a catalyst for change, which is a big part of what ourDavid Narkewiez, Mayor September 29, 2014 Page 2 client and his supporters want but which, as a practical matter, would not be part of a court's final judgment after a trial Introduction To The Facts ‘As you know, the incident giving rise to Mr. Correia’s claims occurred in the early morning hours of March 31, 2013. Following his arrest on charges of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct, an attomey who witnessed officers of the Northampton Police Department (“NPD”) taking Mr. Correia into custody posted a video on YouTube with the caption: “Northampton Massachusetts Police Brutality.” This video went viral, and the case received extensive media attention! Several days later, you posted the following statement from Chief Russell Sienkiewicz on your Facebook page: The NPD was summoned to Tully O'Reilly's in response to a series of altercations that took place that night, In the moments before the video started, the arrested individual had attempted to assault a Tully's bouncer and fled the grasp of an NPD officer, and he was then subdued, arrested and placed into custody. The taking of pictures played no role in the arrest. NPD officers are well-versed in the laws conceming videotaping, as clearly demonstrated by their non- interference with the filming of the YouTube video. Appropriate charges have been filed against this individual and will follow the usual procedure through the courts. The NPD is continuing to investigate this matter to assure compliance with all department rules and regulations. The District Attorney's Determination On The Criminal Charges ‘The Northwestern District Attomey’s office concluded, however, that criminal charges had been filed against Mr. Correia inappropriately. On the first court date following the arraignment, May 9, 2013, a scheduled pre-trial conference, the District Attomey dismissed the resisting arrest count. That dismissal was based upon a determination that “at the time the defendant knew or should have known he was being placed under arrest he offered no resistance to the police.” The District, ‘Attorney also converted the disorderly conduct count to a civil infraction, thereby divesting itself of authority to prosecute Mr. Correia and putting the NPD in the position of plaintiff. ‘The City’s Determination On The Civil Disorderly Conduct Complaint "To date, the YouTube video with the caption “Northampton Massachusetts Police Brutality” has been viewed 84,557 times.David Narkewiez, Mayor September 29, 2014 Page 3 ‘The City retained Special Counsel for the sole purpose of representing the NPD at a civil trial against Mr. Correia. However, on November 29, 2013, just before the scheduled trial date, and after appearing on behalf of the NPD at several hearings, the Special Counselor declined to proceed even with the civil claim and filed a nolle prosequi dismissing the disorderly conduct count. ‘A press release your office issued on December 2, 2013, indicated that you made the decision “not to proceed any further with this matter” after reviewing Mr. Correia’s case “extensively with the City Solicitor, the Chief of Police, and a former prosecutor who the City retained as special counsel.” (Statement of Mayor David J. Narkewiez Regarding the Dismissal of Charges against Mr. Jonas Correia (Dec. 2, 2013).) We have no reason to question the thoroughness, or thoughtfulness, of this evaluation of evidence. That said, we are mindful that our perspective was not a part of the review that led you to initially state “that NPD officers acted professionally and appropriately during this incident.” (Id? ‘The purpose of this letter is therefore not simply to fulfill our obligation under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, sec. 4 to present Mr. Correia’s claim to your office prior to filing suit. It is our sincere hope that the following presentation of the evidence will make such litigation unnecessary by causing you to reconsider your assessment of the actions of the NPD officers who participated in arresting and macing Mr. Correia, ‘The Material Submitted With This Letter And Identification Of Participants Enclosed with this letter is a flash drive containing the following material: Ex.A - 4:58 video taken by Rachel Rothman on March 31, 2013 (Rothman video) Ex.B - 380 Exported Still Frames (SFs) from Rothman Video Ex.C - Christopher Dumas (DUMAS) Narrative Ex.D - Thomas Briotta (BRIOTTA) Narrative EXE + Alan Borowski (BOROWSKI) Narrative EX.F - ‘Walter Jennings (JENNINGS) Written Statement In order to properly evaluate the written statements furnished by participants in this event, one must begin by identifying their authors on the Rothman video. 2 Our perspective was also absent in the purportedly “independent review of the events of March 31, 2013” that resulted in a press release from the District Attomey’s office proclaiming that “the ‘Northampton Police had probable cause to arrest Mr. Correia for the crime of Disorderly Conduct.”David Narkewiez, Mayor September 29, 2014 Page 4 By all accounts, DUMAS was the first officer to make physical contact with our client; BOROWSKI deployed OC Spray; and BRIOTTA assisted DUMAS in taking Mr. Correia to the ground. JENNINGS, of course, is the bouncer whose interactions with our client preceded police involvement. DUMAS can be seen at the 0:01 mark of the Rothman video. He appears to be standing on, or next 1, the sidewalk between Pearl Street and Tully O'Reilly's (the bar). His back is to the camera and his legs are obscured by the front of a cruiser parked on Pearl Street facing east.” Keep your focus on this officer for the first 18 seconds of the Rothman video and you will eventually see him step around JENNINGS to initiate contact with Mr. Correia. BOROWSKI can be seen walking out of the bar at SF# 20. Observe the parking meter in the top left hand comer in this SF. To the left of the meter’s coin receptacle, you will see BOROWSKI’s hand. Keep your focus on this portion of the screen and review the next 10 SFs. At SF# 30, BOROWSKC's hand appears on the right side of the coin receptacle. In SF# 38, his face can be seen. Maintain your attention on the upper left quadrant of the screen and you will eventually see BOROWSKI deploy the OC Spray at SF#s 183-84. [As for BRIOTTA, proceed to SF# 210. Note the absence of a hand in the top left comer of the screen, Now go to SF¥ 211 and observe the presence of a hand. By SF# 250, BRIOTTA has reached DUMAS and Mr. Correia, and over the course of the next 50 SFs, BRIOTTA can be seen tumbling with them to the ground. * + + 8 8 Comparison Of The Police Officers’ Statements To The Audio-Visual Evidence Having situated these participants, let us tur to their official, written statements and compare them with the audio-visual evidence. Before initiating contact with Mr, Correia, DUMAS apparently participated in the arrest of Modesto Melendez (Melendez) inside the bar.’ In his report, DUMAS writes that as other officers were * To the lefveast of DUMAS, the back of another officer can be seen addressing several subjects seated on the curb. + According to DUMAS, he “delivered two or three knees strikes to Melendez’s lower abdominal area” and “two or three strikes to Melendez’s head with [his] right fist.” For present purposes, whether the use of this force was justified is irrelevant. It is undisputed that DUMAS threw a half dozen kicks/punches inside the bar, and itis therefore fair to assume that his adrenaline was running higher than usual when he encountered Mr. Correia.David Narkewicz, Mayor September 29, 2014 Page 5 securing Melendez, he “was able to hear someone screaming that there was an issue outside the back left side door to the bar.” At this point, DUMAS claims that he “immediately ran outside and observed Correia yelling loudly at Jennings.” A review of the Rothman video and video stills demonstrates that these assertions are untrue, ‘As noted above, DUMAS can be seen at the 0:01 mark of the Rothman video standing just to the south of the cruiser facing east. He did not run outside in response to anyone's screams regarding an issue involving Mr. Correia; DUMAS was already outside when the issue involving Mr. Correia unfolded, Now go to the 0:03 mark of the Rothman video and you will see JENNINGS. His back is to the camera as he extends his left arm pointing in an easterly direction. At the 0:04 mark, Mr. Correia emerges, and it appears that JENNINGS’ gesture was directed at him. Watch the next 8 seconds of the video. You will see Mr. Correia walk in the direction JENNINGS pointed, then step off the curb into an empty parking spot. He has his cell phone out and it appears that he is attempting to make a recording of the interaction taking place between the officer next to DUMAS and four subjects sitting on the curb. See supra note 3. Rewind the video and watch these 8 seconds again. This time, focus on JENNINGS. As our client walks in the direction JENNINGS pointed, JENNINGS tums his back on Mr. Correia.’ At the 0:09 mark, a man in a plaid shirt and a female with dark hair pass JENNINGS heading in the same direction Mr. Correia just travelled. As they do, JENNINGS turns and notices our client standing in the empty parking spot holding his cell phone. Rewind the Rothman video again and, this time, listen to the audio during these first 12 seconds. If you do, you won't hear any support for DUMAS? claim that his attention was drawn to the interaction between our client and JENNINGS due to the “screaming” of some unknown third party. Now recall DUMAS? location by considering SF #17.5 The outline of DUMAS? figure is visible in the top right hand comer. He appears to be 10-12 feet from JENNINGS and 12-15 feet from Mr. Correia. Now consider Rothman’s location. In the bottom right hand corner of SF #17 is the back bumper of another cruiser parked on Pearl Street facing west. At this moment in time, it would 5 As will be discussed, the fact that JENNINGS felt comfortable enough to turn his back on Mr. Correia casts considerable doubt on JENNINGS’ claim that our client had just “tryed [sic] to fight [ENNINGS] the whole way out” of the bar. © The SFs start at about the 12 second mark of the video. For every 1 second of recording, there are approximately 30 SFs.David Narkewiez, Mayor September 29, 2014 Page 6 appear that she is filming from the north side of Pearl Street approximately 25-30 feet from our client, JENNINGS, and DUMAS. Now return to the 0:12 mark of the Rothman video. Push play and you will hear an individual start ling loudly.” Contrary to DUMAS’ claim, it won't be “Correia yelling loudly at .. . Jennings,” but JENNINGS yelling loudly at Correia, Specifically, JENNINGS yells at our client, “Walk the fuck away!” Keep in mind that these words come through clearly on a recording made from 25-30 feet away. Remember DUMAS' much closer proximity to the speaker of the words as you consider the plausibility of any claim by DUMAS that he somehow failed to hear them. ‘After misreporting where he was when the verbal altercation began and misidentifying the party ‘who started yelling, DUMAS proceeds to accuse Mr. Correia of “rais{ing} his right arm and clos{ing} the distance between him and JENNINGS.” Retum to SF# 17. Note JENNINGS’ location on the sidewalk. Review the next 33 SFs and you will see JENNINGS “raise[] his right arm and close{] the distance between him and (Mr. Correia.]” Now consider SFis 51-83. Watch JENNINGS step off the curb and plant himself inches from our client. Focus your attention on JENNINGS left hand and see how close it comes to making contact with our client's face. Return to SF# 17 and note the position of our client’s white sneakers. Maintain your attention on those sneakers and note how they remain in exactly the same spot for the next 66 SFs. Go back to SF# 17. This time, as you review the next 66 SFs, focus on our client's right arm, i.e. the one he supposedly “raised” at JENNINGS. Note, in SF#s 17-46, how Mr. Correia uses both hands to hold his phone. As JENNINGS steps off the curb, watch, in SF#s 47-83, as our client Jowers his right arm and brings it to his side. Now, consider BOROWSEI’s account. He claims that as he “began walking out the exit, [he] saw . Correia ... up in the face of... Jennings. . . in an empty parking space . .. 2-3 feet off the curb... "screaming at Jennings and . . . pointing his [right hand] in Jennings’ face.” As noted above, BOROWSKTs face is visible in the doorway in SF# 38. Take a look at JENNINGS in this SF. The heel of his right foot has not quite settled on the curb and his left leg is lagging behind. His right arm is raised and he is in the middle of screaming for our client to “walk the fuck away!" The distance from where BOROWSKT is standing to JENNINGS is roughly 10-12 feet. By the time JENNINGS positions himself inches from our client and points his left hand in our client’s face ~ as can be seen in SF# 83 BOROWSI is out on the sidewalk. ‘We would ask you to consider DUMAS and BOROWSKI on the witness stand being confronted by this evidence. The Rothman video and SFs show them 10-12 feet away from JENNINGS ~ so close it would have been impossible for them not to hear JENNINGS scream profanity at our client. Both officers appear to have paid attention to JENNINGS as he moved aggressively towards our client, yet each chose to accuse our client, instead of JENNINGS, of being the initial aggressor.David Narkewicz, Mayor September 29, 2014 Page 7 The h ice Misrepresentation Engenders Further Erroneous Statements Pe ‘The misrepresentations of the NPD get worse. The next sentence of DUMAS? report claims that Mr, Comeia “appeared to be taking a fighting stance.” In order to “take” any kind of stance, an individual must alter the position of his body. When an individual takes a “fighting” or “pugilistic stance,” he does this by “dropping one leg and side of the body (usually the strong side) behind the other.” Jim Glennon, *Pre-Attack Indicators,” http://www.bluesheepdog.com/pre-attack-indicators! (last visited June 30, 2014). With this in mind, review SFés 17-158 ~ the last SF being one where DUMAS has begun to reach for Mr. Correia. Focus your attention on our client’s legs. Does he ever drop one behind the other, blading his body to present a smaller target for JENNINGS ~ the person he was supposedly poised to attack? ‘According to DUMAS, once Mr. Correia took, or “appeared to be taking,” a “fighting stance,” DUMAS “believed that [our client] was going to strike JENNINGS" and this caused him to “intervene{]” by “grabbfing] [Mr. Correia] by the wrist to prevent him from striking JENNINGS.” It appears that DUMAS commences his intervention at around SF# 115 when he starts moving in the direction of our client and JENNINGS. By SF# 130, JENNINGS has begun stepping to the side creating a path for DUMAS to our client. Review SF#s 150-58 and you will see DUMAS extend his arms in the direction of Mr. Correia until they disappear from view on the other side of JENNINGS. ‘Now take a look at SF#s 115-58 while focusing on Mr. Correia. This sequence begins with our client’s right arm extended (mirroring the position of JENNINGS’ left arm). By SF# 130, our client’s right arm has retumed to his side, As JENNINGS steps to the side, our client's left arm comes up. However, by SF# 156, it is clear he is simply pointing in the direction of the bar. Nothing about our client’s posture suggests that he is about to strike anyone. He is standing flat- footed in a narrow stance looking straight ahead. His chin is not tucked behind a shoulder. His hands are not balled in fists. Neither arm is cocked. His body is not coiled. Likewise, nothing about JENNINGS” posture indicates a concem that he might suddenly be struck. ‘As he moves to the side, his guard is down and he appears to be more focused on DUMAS and BOROWSKI than Mr. Correia. ‘The Incorrect Police Statements That Formed The Basis Of The Resisting Arrest Charge Against ‘Mr. Correia And ‘The Purported Justification For Macing HimDavid Narkewicz, Mayor September 29, 2014 Page 8 The next portion of the two officers’ reports relate our client's supposed resistance and their response to it. According to DUMAS, when he grabbed hold of our client’s wrist, Mr. Correia “attempted to pull away.” This purportedly prompted Dumas to tell “Correia to stop resisting.” As for BOROWSKI, he claims that our client was actually successful and “pulled away when Officer Dumas attempted to control him.” At this point, both agree that BOROWSKI made the decision to administer a single “quick burst of O.C. spray.” Return to SF# 158. This is the last clear shot of DUMAS before he disappears behind JENNINGS. Now review SF#s 159-183. Keep in mind that these 24 SFs capture roughily 8/10 of one second. ‘See supra note 6. Start by focusing on our client. Note how he remains motionless as DUMAS closes in on him. At SF# 168, it appears that Dumas makes contact with our client, causing his left shoulder move backwards. Now pay attention to our client’s legs. Observe how they stay more or Jess straight; how his stance remains narrow; how his feet barely move. Recall the officers’ claims that our client attempted to (or actually did) pull away. During the % second between the initial contact by DUMAS (depicted in SF# 168) and when BOROWSKT’s O.C. Spray leaves its canister (in SF# 183), does it appear that our client made any sort of effort to pull away? Tum up the volume on the Rothman video. Do you hear anyone say, “Stop Resisting!"? Or “You're under arrest!"? Go back to SF# 138 and take a look at BOROWSKI. In his right hand, you will see his 0.C. Spray. Watch the next 20 SFs, as he walks towards our client, shaking the bottle, preparing to use it. Does it appear as though BOROWSKI made the decision to administer the spray when Mr. Correia “pulled away” from DUMAS or was this something he decided to do before DUMAS ever touched him? ‘The answer to this question is clear. As for BRIOTTA, the primary focus of his report is the physical altercation he and other officers had inside the bar in the process of taking Melendez into custody. Once Melendez was finally secure, BRIOTTA began to escort him out of the bar along with Officers Sotolotto and Golec. At this point, BRIOTTA claims that he observed Mr. Correia “yelling” at Jennings before “mov[ing] towards [JENNINGS] and rais[ing] his arm.” After DUMAS grabbed our client “in an attempt to effect an arrest” and BOROWSKI “deployed a burst of OC Spray,” BRIOTTA “quickly ran over to assist.” According to BRIOTTA, he and DUMAS “were able to take [Correia] to the ground” following a “brief struggle.” [As noted above, the prosecution concluded and conceded that this so-called “brief struggle” simply never happened. This determination is supported by the Rothman video at SF#s 183-253. After being sprayed, Mr. Correia stumbles away from BOROWSKI and places both hands over his eyes. By the end of this two second sequence, DUMAS has wrapped his arms around our client's waist T This perhaps noteworthy that Borowski does not corroborate Dumas’ claim that he ever advised our client to “stop resisting.”David Narkewiez, Mayor September 29, 2014 Page 9 and is in the process of tackling him to the ground. Watch the next 30 SFs and you will see that Mr. Correia only removes his hands from his eyes in order to break his fall. Focus on BRIOTTA as you ‘watch this sequence again and you will see that he played no part in taking our client to the ground, With respect to BRIOTTA’s observations about our client’s interaction with JENNINGS, they suffer from the same flaws as the observations found in the narratives furnished by his fellow officers. However, whereas DUMAS and BOROWSKI seem to have inaccurately written a narrative on what took place between Mr. Correia and JENNINGS, it appears that BRIOTTA’s account of this interaction is based on what he leamed from fellow officers as opposed to what he (mis)perceived with his own two eyes. He simply was not yet present at the time of that interaction. Retum to SF#151. Recall that this is approximately two seconds before BRIOTTA’s presence can be documented in SF#211. By SF#151, our client's encounter with JENNINGS is more or less over and his encounter with DUMAS and BOROWSK is just about to begin. Look in the doorway from which BRIOTTA eventually emerged and you will not see any sign of him.* Further Witness Statements Finally, there is the witness statement of Walter JENNINGS. He claimed that while inside the bar our client “tryed [sic] several times to push his way up to the police” as officers were in the process of taking Melendez into custody. According to JENNINGS, as he removed Mr. Correia from the back door, our client “tryed [sic] to fight [him] the whole way out.” {As previously noted, JENNINGS” account of what took place inside the bar is severely undermined by what initially took place outside, When our client first emerges at the 0:04 mark of the Rothman vvideo, he has just passed JENNINGS on the sidewalk. Over the course of the next six seconds, neither party behaves as though they had just been on the verge of fisticuffs. JENNINGS tums his, back on a man who supposedly, in the preceding seconds, tried to fight him the whole way out. Mr. Correia does not attempt to either re-enter the bar or assault the bouncer who supposedly removed him by foree. By now, the problem with JENNINGS’ subsequent claim that our client “got in {his} face” should be readily apparent. As for his allegation that Mr. Correia tried to “provoke a fight,” listen the Gialogue that begins at the 0:12 mark of the Rothman video and you will hear the following exchange: JENNINGS: Walk the fuck away now! CORREIA: Don’t tell me to walk the fuck away 8 Even if BRIOTTA had been present in the doorway at this time, his view of our client and/or JENNINGS would have almost certainly been obstructed by BOROWSKI.David Narkewiez, Mayor September 29, 2014 Page 10 JENNINGS: Get the fuck out of here! CORREIA: Don't ell me to fucking walk away! In effect, JENNINGS ordered our client to stop exercising a constitutional right. In response, our client essentially told JENNINGS to stop issuing an order he had no authority to give.” This exchange can’t reasonably be characterized as our client attempting to “provoke a fight.” In sum, there are serious discrepancies between the descriptions of activity found in the narratives furnished by participants in this event and the actions clearly observable on the Rothman video. These contradictions will constitute important, and, we suggest, disturbing, evidence at trial. ‘A Social Science Explanation — A Better Relationship Between The Police And Minority Communities In Northampton? With respect to the officers involved, these differences can be explained in one of two ways. First, it is possible that officers made a conscious choice to misrepresent what occurred. At the time they ‘wrote their reports, they may have known that our client did nothing to warrant his arrest, nothing that justified macing him directly in his eyes, and only accused him of criminal behavior in order to cover up their own misconduct. Alternatively, perhaps one or more officers really did believe that Mr. Correia did the things that they accused him of doing and were genuinely surprised when confronted with video footage at odds with the narratives they wrote, Such a discrepaney perhaps could be explained by what social scientists refer to as implicit bias. See JENNIFER L. EBERHARDT ET AL., Seeing Black: Race, Crime, ° The fact that our client had a right to record the police does not appear to be disputed. Implicit in Chief Sienkiewiez’s statement that “[iJhe taking of pictures played no role in the arrest” is a concession that Mr. Correia was engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment. The caselaw unequivocally supports this view. See Glik v. Cunliffe, 655 F.3d 78, 83 (2011) (holding that “the First Amendment protects the filming of government officials in public spaces"); Gericke v. Weare Police Dept., No. 12-2326, slip op. at 13 (1* Cir. 2014) (same). Obviously, if the NPD Jacked the authority to prevent our client from unobtrusively recording an officer in a public space, JENNINGS had no such authority either. In this regard, we note that under M.R.Civ.P. 41 (6)(3), because the disorderly conduct civil action was dismissed with a nol pros (reinforced by non-appearance on the day of trial), the dismissal functions as an adjudication on the merits in favor of Mr. Correia. We suggest that the y will have a difficult obstacle in trying to meet its burden to prove probable cause to arrest for disorderly conduct committed in the presence of police officers given what the evidence clearly shows and the legal burden under Gutierrez v. Mass. Bay Trans. Auth, 437 Mass. 396, 409 (2002). Of course, the excessive force claim in no way depends on the false arrest count.David Narkewiez, Mayor September 29, 2014 Page 11 and Visual Processing, JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY & SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 87, No. 6, 876 (2004) (citations omitted). “Like all other populations, police officers are not immune to implicit bias.” Cheryl Staats et al., State of the Science: Implicit Bias Review 2013, KIRWAN INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF RACE & ETHNICITY, available at kirwaninstitute@osu.edu (last visited July 3, 2014).!° For example, in one study, when directly asked “who looks criminal?”, police officers “chose Black faces over White ones, particularly those that were more stereotypically Black.” Id. (citation omitted), In another study, “[pJolice officers and students exhibit{ed] an apparent ‘hierarchy of bias’ in making a split-second decision whether to shoot suspects who appear to be wielding a gun or, alternatively, a benign object like a cell phone.” Racial “hierarchy of bias” drives decision to shoot armed, unarmed suspects, study finds, (Oct. 25, 2012), http://phys.org/news/2012-10- racial-hierarchy-bias-decision-armed.html (last visited July 1, 2014) (“Both the police and student subjects were most likely to shoot at blacks . . ..”); see also Plant, E. A., & Peruche, B. M., The consequences of race for police officers’ responses to criminal suspects, PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, Vol. 16, 180-183 (2005). In short, “[sJocial psychological research has shown that ‘implicit’ or ‘unconscious’ racial bias can impact what people perceive and do, even in subjects who consciously hold nonprejudiced attitudes.” Lorie A. Fridell, Racially Biased Policing: The Law Enforcement Response to the Implicit Black-Crime Association, in RACIAL DIVIDE: RACIAL AND ETHNIC BIAS INTHE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM pg. 39 (Michael Lynch et al. eds. 2008). Final Remarks On its website, the NPD states that its mission is “to enhance the professionalism of police service through continuous quality improvement.” NPD, “Field Training and Evaluation Program, available at hitp://www.northamptonpd.conv/operations field-training-and-evaluation-program html (last visited Aug. 14, 2014). The case of Jonas Correia can and should be a catalyst for improving the quality of service the NPD provides in cases involving people of color. If the City acknowledges the violation of Mr. Correia’s rights and takes concrete steps to address the underlying cause, it can help police officers here (and elsewhere) more “accurately assess the potential threat and criminality of the citizens they encounter.” B. Michelle Peruche & E. Ashby Plant, The Correlates of Law Enforcement Officers’ Automatic and Controlled Race-Based 20 Implicit bias also exists in many forums and forms throughout the criminal justice system, affecting persons who presumably abhor it. See, ¢.g., L. Song Richardson & Phillip Atiba Goff, Implicit Racial Bias in Public Defender Triage, 122 YALE L.J. 2626 (2013); Jeffrey J. Rachlinski et al., Does Unconscious Racial Bias Affect Trial Judges, CORNELL LAW FACULTY PUBLICATIONS (2009); Robert J. Smith & Justin D. Levinson, The Impact of Implicit Bias on the Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion, 35 SEATTLE UNIV. L. REV. 795 (2012).David Narkewicz, Mayor September 29, 2014 Page 12 Responses to Criminal Suspects, BASIC & APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 198 (2006). If the City reflexively offers uncritical support to the participants in Mr. Correia’s arrest, it will miss an opportunity to give officers the tools they need to “make correct, individualized decisions about suspects under the arduous circumstances in which they sometimes find themselves.” Jd. We look forward to your consideration of the above and response within ten days of receipt so that we may determine if this matter can be resolved without litigation. Sincerely, Ad, Lin Y Liane ili C.Newman WCNikeb Waki Word ACLUMCoreitNarkewir leer lean 923.14 docx