CANTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
INCIDENT ON JULY 19, 2022, COLD CASE INVESTIGATION
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Attorney Terence M. Delehanty| Law Offices of Terence M. Delehanty | September 10, 2024
Confidential Draft Investigatory Findings Submitted to the Town of Canton on
September 10, 2024, by Attorney Terence M. Delehanty, on Behalf of Law Offices of
Terence M. Delehanty
I. LOGISTICAL INFORMATION:
On or about June 15, 2024, Chief Helena Rafferty of the Canton Police Department engaged
my services to investigate an incident that was highlighted during the Karen Read trial. The
investigation concerns an issue involving Detective Kevin Albert (Albert) of the Canton
Police Department Detective Unit, related to an incident that occurred in July 2022.
The investigation began on June 17th, 2024, and continued through the end of August 2024.
The primary focus of the investigation is to determine whether Albert misplaced or lost his
service firearm and badge during a cold case investigation in the Town of Sandwich .
II. SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION/SERVICES:
The scope of this investigation involves a fact-finding review of an incident that occurred in
July 2022, during which Albert and Trooper Michael Proctor (Proctor) traveled to Sandwich,
Massachusetts to conduct interviews related to a cold case.
The investigation aims to determine if:
1. Albert misplaced or lost his firearm and badge during the investigation,
2. The loss or misplacement was properly reported through the appropriate chain of
command,
3. Any policies, rules, or regulations were violated.
Additionally, the investigation will provide recommendations based on current trends and
best practices in policing as they relate to any issues identified.
III. DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION RECEIVED AND/OR REVIEWED:
Exhibit 1 - Administrative Leave Letter from Chief Helena Rafferty to Albert (dated June
18th, 2024)
Exhibit 2 - Notice of Outside Investigator from Chief Helena Rafferty to Albert (dated June
18th, 2024)
Exhibit 3 - Preservation Order from Chief Helena Rafferty to Albert (dated June 20, 2024)
Exhibit 4 - Order from Chief Helena Rafferty to Albert for Communications Between Albert
and Proctor (dated July 8th, 2024)
Exhibit 5 - Attendance Records (Sunday July 17, 2022, to Saturday July 23, 2022)
1
Exhibit 6 - Union Contract (Canton Police Association and the Town of Canton)
Exhibit 7 - Policy and Procedures 4.01, Internal Affairs
Exhibit 8 - Rules and Regulations of the Canton Police Department
Exhibit 9 - Relevant portions of video testimony of Proctor during the
Karen Read Trial
Exhibit 10 - Order from Chief Helena Rafferty to Albert for credit card
records
Exhibit 11 - ALM GL ch.38 §4 (District Attorney’s Jurisdiction)
Exhibit 12 - ALM GL ch. 231 § 85BB (Fraudulent Claim of Hours)
Exhibit 13 - ALM GL ch. 269 § 10H (Possession of Firearms While Under the Influence)
Exhibit 14 - Credit card/debit card transactions submitted by Albert (these records
will remain confidential)
Exhibit 15 - Texted messages between Albert and Proctor on July 18th, 19th and 20th of 2022,
provided by the U.S. Attorney’s Office (these records will remain confidential)
Exhibit 16 - Transcripts of Proctor’s Internal Interview, provided by the State
Police (these records will remain confidential as the State Police Investigation
continues)
IV. INTERVIEWS:
The interviews of all witnesses in this investigation were coordinated directly by the
investigator. They began on July 8th, 2024, and continued through August 14th, 2024. Each
interview was scheduled in one to two-hour sessions. The investigator interviewed Canton
Police Department officials at varying ranks with first or secondhand knowledge of the cold
case investigations being conducted by Proctor and Albert.
All Town of Canton employees who were interviewed were informed that the investigator
was hired to perform an independent, neutral and non-biased fact-finding investigation.
The investigator explained to each person interviewed that the investigator is a Massachusetts
licensed attorney-at-law, and that he does not represent the Town of Canton, the Canton
Police Department, or any member of the community or police force, and that the
investigator was hired solely as an independent, non-biased fact-finder.
All interviews were conducted in person by Attorney Terence M. Delehanty.
Portions of this report are summaries of interviews and not verbatim transcripts.
Phone Interview with Attorney David Yannetti:
2
On July 8th, 2024, this investigator contacted Attorney David Yannetti via email and phone to
obtain any pertinent information relevant to the investigation that was not subject to a
protective order.
Attorney Yannetti responded and indicated that he believed his team did not possess any
additional information beyond what had already been presented in court, or the text messages
held by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts. These text
messages had already been requested directly from the United States Attorney’s Office.
Interview of Lieutenant Paul Gallagher:
This investigator scheduled an interview with Lieutenant Paul Gallagher for July 31, 2024, at
11:00 a.m. at Canton Town Hall, Room 208.
At the start of the interview, Gallagher was informed that it would be recorded as required by
the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST), and he consented to the
recording.1
Background:
According to Gallagher, he was hired as a permanent Police Officer by the Canton Police
Department on April 1st, 1992, and became full time officer in 1994. He was promoted to
Detective in 2000, and in 2005 was assigned to the DEA Drug Task Force, where he served
for 13 years. Gallagher was promoted to Sergeant in 2017 and to Detective Sergeant in 2018
after he had left the DEA task force. In August of 2021, he was promoted to the rank of
Lieutenant and part of his responsibilities included hiring, internal affairs, background checks
and overseeing the detectives and various shifts.
Gallagher indicated he had never been the subject of an Internal Affairs investigation and
was in good standing with POST.2
Cold Case Assignment:
Gallagher confirmed that in July 2022, he was the Lieutenant in charge of the Detective Unit.
He acknowledged that Albert was assigned to a cold case investigation in September 2021.
Due to the ongoing nature of the investigation, specific details were not discussed, and the
case was referred to generically as a cold case. Gallagher explained that the case was initiated
when a citizen submitted newspaper articles to the Deputy Chief, who then forwarded them
1 555 CMR 1.01(2)(c) provides that an agency investigator’s “interviews of relevant witnesses” “should be
audio recorded if feasible.”
2 This information was confirmed through the POST website [Link]
records/officer-status-lists/?wpv_post_search=Paul+Gallagher&wpv-current-agency=canton-police-
department&wpv_aux_current_post_id=21215&wpv_aux_parent_post_id=21215&wpv_view_count=21211.
As well as: [Link]
3
to Gallagher for further investigation. Since the case fell under the District Attorney’s Office
jurisdiction, Proctor was assigned through the District Attorney’s Office. 3
Conflict Checking:
The investigator asked if the Department conducts conflict checks before assigning cases to
detectives. Gallagher explained that detectives sometimes self-report conflicts, and in other
cases, the Department intervenes to prevent employees from working on certain cases due to
a conflict. He noted that, as a small town, Canton has many personal connections, which can
often benefit investigators.
Overtime Procedures:
Gallagher explained the overtime obligations and the balance between flex time4 and
overtime within the Detective Unit. He noted that there is a three-hour minimum for
overtime, meaning if a day shift officer is required to stay beyond their shift for an
investigation, they are compensated for at least three hours. Detectives must obtain approval
for overtime in advance, unless they are already on duty and required to stay longer due to
assisting the Patrol Division or responding to a Patrol Division request.
Regarding Albert’s overtime for the trip to Sandwich, Gallagher clarified that detectives
enter their own overtime into the system and include comments in the attendance roster,
noting the case name or number to indicate the reason. Gallagher confirmed that Albert is
known for diligently requesting overtime approval in advance. While Gallagher does not
specifically recall the July 19, 2022 overtime request, he is confident that Albert followed the
proper procedures and requested permission for the assignment.
Breaks:
Gallagher was asked about lunch breaks for detectives and whether there is a set time limit
for them. He confirmed that lunch and dinner breaks are provided, typically lasting thirty
minutes for patrol officers. Detectives, however, usually have more flexible breaks, often
eating quickly and returning to work promptly. Gallagher emphasized that extended breaks
beyond an hour are not customary and would exceed Departmental expectations. He also
stated that consuming alcohol during breaks is strictly prohibited by the rules, regulations,
and practices of the Canton Police Department.
Badge and Gun:
Gallagher was asked whether Albert had reported misplacing or losing his badge. He stated
that he had not received any such reports from Albert and was unaware until recently of any
discussions about the badge being misplaced.
3ALM GL ch. 38, § 4
4flex time is when a person adjusts their work schedule to accommodate investigations that require after-
hours work
4
When asked if he would consider a badge left in another police officer’s unmarked cruiser as
lost or misplaced, Gallagher explained that he would not. He noted that in his experience,
officers who use badge belt clips often remove them for comfort when seated, and he himself
frequently removes his belt clip while driving, considering it neither lost nor misplaced.
Gallagher was also asked if he had any knowledge of Albert allegedly misplacing a firearm.
He stated that he was not aware of such an incident. Additionally, Gallagher mentioned that
he does not use social media, and had not discussed the matter with anyone other than the
chief.
Estimated Travel Time and Interview Time:
Gallagher was asked about the duration of an investigative interview in Sandwich, including
travel time. He estimated that the interview itself could take between one to one and a half
hours, with total duration including travel being three to five hours.
Gallagher stated that he had no knowledge of whether Albert stopped for dinner during the
visit but noted that he would not find it unusual if they were in Sandwich for an extended
period of time into the evening. Regarding alcohol consumption, Gallagher confirmed that it
would be against the Canton Police Department's rules, regulations, and practices to consume
alcohol while on duty, including during lunch or dinner breaks.
Interview of Detective Albert:
In communication with Union Attorney Jennifer Smith of Sandulli Grace, P.C., and Union
Attorney Peter Pasciucco of Anderson, Goldman, Tobin & Pasciucco, LLP, an interview with
Albert was conducted on August 14, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. Please note that any delay in
scheduling the interview was outside the control of the Town and Albert.
The interview was conducted at Canton Town Hall as scheduled. At the start of the
interview, both Attorney Pasciucco and Albert were informed that the interview would be
recorded, as required by the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST).
Both Attorney Pasciucco and Albert consented to the recording.5
Background Information:
Albert provided the following background information about his employment with the
Canton Police Department: He was hired as a police officer in 2005 and served in a School
Resource Officer role. Approximately five years ago, he was promoted to Detective. Albert
confirmed that he has had no disciplinary issues or complaints filed with POST during his
5555 CMR 1.01(2)(c) provides that an agency investigator’s “interviews of relevant witnesses” “should be
audio recorded if feasible.”
5
tenure. He is current with all in-service training and is certified by POST as a Police Officer.6
Albert was in plain clothes and had his badge and firearm with him when he entered Proctor's
cruiser on July 19th, 2022.
Cold Case Assignment:
Albert explained that Gallagher assigned him the cold case investigation on or about
September or October of 2021. He believed that a relative of the victim contacted the Canton
Police prompting Gallagher to asked him to investigate. Albert and Proctor had been
conducting interviews sporadically throughout the year. When they identified a person of
interest, they scheduled an interview with that individual in Sandwich on July 19, 2022.
Travel and Interview Details:
• Travel Arrangements: On July 18th, 2022, the day before the trip to Sandwich
Albert and Proctor communicated by text. During that conversation, it was decided
that Proctor would drive them to Sandwich on July 19th, 2022. When asked about his
comment, “soak up the overtime”, Albert explained it was a “tongue-in-cheek joke”
implying that they would stop for dinner since they would be out for an extended
period.
• Overtime Practices: Albert confirmed the overtime practices of the Canton Police
Department as discussed during Gallagher’s interview. Officers receive a minimum
of three hours of pay for overtime work and are then compensated on an hour-for-
hour basis thereafter. Additionally, if an officer works into the next hour, they are
paid for the entire hour, not just the fractional part.
• Trip Details: Albert stated that he drove to work on July 19th and worked the day
shift, typically from 7:45 a.m. to 3:45 p.m., after which he went on overtime. He
recalled that Proctor picked him up at the Canton Police Department around 4:40 or
4:45 p.m. The drive to Sandwich took approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes, with no
stops made. The interview in Sandwich lasted approximately 1 hour to 1.5 hours.
They attempted to locate another individual but were unsuccessful.
Return Trip and Diner:
• Diner Location: On the return trip to Canton, Albert and Proctor stopped at Flanders
Field in Hanover7. Albert could not recall his exact order but believed it was likely a
6This information was confirmed through the POST website [Link]
records/officer-status-lists/?wpv_post_search=Kevin+Albert&wpv-current-agency=canton-police-
department&wpv_aux_current_post_id=21215&wpv_aux_parent_post_id=21215&wpv_view_count=21211 As
well as: [Link]
7 Flanders Field closed on or about September of 2023. [Link]
flanders-field-shuts-doors-leaving-patrons-and-community-awaiting-answers/
6
burger or chicken, and an appetizer. When asked about alcoholic beverages, Albert
said he did not specifically recall ordering a beer but acknowledged it was "certainly
possible". He stated, “he would take full responsibility for ordering one to two beers”
but he did not recall what kind they were. Dinner was estimated to take about one
hour, and the drive from Sandwich to Hanover was estimated at 45 minutes to 1 hour.
• Payment: Albert did not remember who paid for the dinner but stated that they
typically split the bill. He did not request reimbursement from the Town of Canton
for the dinner.8
Badge and Firearm Handling:
• During Dinner: Albert explained that he usually removes both his badge and firearm
during dinner because they are cumbersome. He stated that Proctor’s vehicle was
equipped with a safe and a locking glove box. Albert stated the firearm was locked in
the glove box directly in front of him and that he believed he placed the badge,
flipped over so it was not visible, in the console.
• Missing Badge: Albert realized that his badge was left in Proctor’s cruiser the
following day when Proctor texted him about it. Albert confirmed that he did not
report the missing badge, as he was informed prior to going to work that morning that
it was indeed in the vehicle.
Other Details:
• Return to Canton: Albert estimated the drive from Hanover to Canton took 40-45
minutes. He was dropped off at the Canton Police Station between 10:10 and 10:30
p.m. Albert confirmed he took his gun when he was dropped off at the Canton Police
Station and explained that a text message about leaving his gun was a joke.
• Post-Interview Activities: Upon returning home, Albert watched television and had
a couple of IPAs, describing "a couple" as about two or three drinks.
• Communications with Proctor: According to Albert, his last communication with
Proctor was in July 2023. He has not discussed this investigation with anyone other
than his wife, legal counsel, and Union representatives. Albert also confirmed Proctor
had never been to his house.
Supplemental Interview of Detective Albert:
On August 29, 2024, Attorney Peter Pascuicco contacted me regarding the financial records I
had requested at the end of Albert’s initial interview. Specifically, we discussed the debit
and/or credit card statements pertinent to the investigation. We agreed it was necessary to
bring Albert back in to explain the charges made to a credit card on July 19, 2022.
8Financial documents were requested and reviewed by this investigator; however, due to privacy concerns,
they will not be included in this report.
7
The supplemental interview with Albert took place on September 4, 2024. During this
interview, Albert noted that while retrieving and reviewing the requested statements, he
realized that he and Proctor had made two stops after their interview in Sandwich.
First Stop: Tree House Brewing Company, Sandwich
• Transactions: Two charges – $34.00 and $70.80
• Explanation: Albert stated that the $34.00 transaction was for alcoholic beverages
consumed on the premises, including tip and tax, and he believes there were two
alcoholic drinks ordered. The $70.80 transaction was for beverages purchased to go,
also including tax. These beverages were intended for a trip to New Hampshire a few
days later. Albert estimated that they spent no more than 30 minutes at Tree House
Brewing Company, which he thought closed around 7:30 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. This
information was corroborated by Tree House Brewing Company’s website, which
states that they close at 8:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, with the last order for drafts being 30
minutes before closing.
Investigation of Tree House Brewing Company:
On September 4, 2024, I visited Tree House Brewing Company in Sandwich and spoke with
the on-duty manager, . I inquired if she could provide an itemized receipt for
specific transactions from July 2022. White attempted to access the transactions but could not
retrieve records beyond one year. She referred me to her superior, Andrew Layte, whom I
contacted by email. As of the writing of this report, I have not received a response from
Layte regarding the itemized receipt for Albert’s transactions.
Second Stop: Flanders Field, Hanover, MA
• Charge: $68.71
• Explanation: This stop on the drive back from Sandwich was discussed during
Albert’s initial interview and aligns with the information he previously provided. The
charge was for an order consisting of an appetizer, entrée, two alcoholic drinks, tax,
and gratuity.
I found Albert’s statements during both interviews to be forthcoming, truthful, and
reasonable.
V. FINDING OF FACT:
The below facts are drawn from the records provided and interviews conducted. It should be
noted that some records provided for the purpose of this investigation were done so in
confidence.
1. Albert was hired by the Canton Police Department in 2005.
8
2. Albert served as a School Resource Officer and then was promoted to Detective
approximately five years ago.
3. Albert was supervised by Gallagher.
4. The Deputy Chief of the Canton Police Department received some correspondence
about a “cold case” from 1980.
5. The correspondence requested further investigation of the matter.
6. That information was forwarded to Gallagher.
7. In September or October of 2021, Gallagher assigned Albert to the "cold case"
investigation.
8. Albert reached out to the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office to request that
someone be assigned to the investigation, consistent with Chapter 38 § 4 of the
Massachusetts General Laws.
9. Since the fall of 2021, Albert and Proctor intermittently conducted interviews and
research related to the cold case.
10. On July 18, 2022, Albert and Proctor exchanged text messages about traveling to
Sandwich, Massachusetts, to conduct an interview for the cold case.
11. They agreed to travel to Sandwich on July 19, 2022, around 5 p.m.
12. In the July 18, 2022 text messages, Proctor mentioned knowing a good place in
Hanover for dinner.
13. On July 19th, 2022, Proctor picked up Albert at the Canton Police Station at
approximately 4:40 p.m.
14. Proctor drove himself and Albert to Sandwich, Massachusetts.
15. No stops were made between the Canton Police Department and Sandwich,
Massachusetts.
16. The travel time to Sandwich was approximately one and one-half hours.
17. The interview that was conducted in Sandwich lasted approximately one to one and
one-half hours.
18. After the interview Proctor and Albert stopped at the Treehouse Brewing Company
in Sandwich, Massachusetts.
19. Albert made two transactions at the Treehouse Brewing Company, one for $34.00
and the other for $70.80.
20. The $34.00 charge was for alcohol consumed on the premise of the Treehouse
Brewing Company.
21. The charge for $70.80 was for four to five four pack of IPA alcoholic beverages that
was purchased to take home
22. After the Treehouse stop, Proctor and Albert drove back to Canton, Massachusetts.
23. They stopped for dinner at Flanders Field in Hanover, Massachusetts.
24. The travel time from Sandwich, MA to Hanover, MA is approximately 45 minutes.
25. Before entering Flanders Field for dinner, Albert removed his badge and placed it
face down in the console area and secured his firearm in the glove box.
26. They spent approximately an hour in the restaurant for dinner.
27. Albert ordered and appetizer, entrée and one or two beers.
28. Albert made a credit card transaction at Flanders Field in the amount of $68.71.
29. After leaving Flanders Field, they returned to the Canton Police Department where
Albert was dropped off.
9
30. Albert did not retrieve his badge from Proctor’s cruiser.
31. Albert did retrieve his firearm from the glovebox of Proctor’s cruiser.
32. Albert did retrieve his 4 to 5 four packs of IPA from Proctor’s cruiser.
33. Albert drove home from the Canton Police Department.
34. Albert arrived home at approximately 10:30 p.m. and subsequently had more beers
while watching television.
35. On July 20, 2022, Albert and Proctor exchanged additional text messages. Proctor
texted, “found your badge in my cruiser this morning. I can leave it in my locker at
the gym, drop it off at your station, or leave it in my mailbox.” Albert responds, “My
mailbox, did I take my gun?” followed by a wincing face emoji.
36. Proctor responded with “haha” followed by “What’s ur address? I will drop it off
after the gym”.
37. Proctor delivered the badge to Albert at the Canton Police Department.
38. On July 20th, 2022, Albert texted Proctor a picture of two alcoholic drinks with a
message “It’s bad!!! I was hungover for sure today!!!”
VI. ANALYSIS:
This incident involves various rules and regulations. To discuss them comprehensively, I
will discuss each rule and regulation individually under separate subtitles. This approach is
intended to provide clarity for the reader. The subsection will be organized as follows:
Criminal Conduct, Possession or Use of Alcohol, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer, Items of
Identification, and Care and Security of Firearms.
Based on all the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom and giving the
appropriate weight thereto of information known at the time of drafting this report, the
following findings and conclusions are made based on the preponderance of the evidence:
Criminal Conduct
As part of my responsibilities, I must determine whether Albert violated the Canton Police
Department's Rules and Regulations by engaging in criminal conduct. According to Rule
11.12-Criminal Conduct:
“Officers shall not commit any motor vehicle or criminal act (felony or
misdemeanor) or violate the regulatory or criminal laws or statutes of the
United States or of any state or local jurisdiction (by-law/ordinance),
whether on or off duty.
NOTE: An officer may be guilty of violating this rule regardless of the
outcome of any criminal court case. Convictions for the violation of any
law is prima facie evidence of a violation of this rule. However, even in
the absence of a conviction (which requires proof beyond a reasonable
doubt), an officer may still be disciplined under this rule for the conduct
that was involved since a preponderance of the evidence is the quantity
of proof required in such cases.”
10
Administrative reviews and resulting discipline adhere to a less stringent evidentiary standard
than criminal court proceedings. For evaluating whether Albert’s actions violated Rule 11.12,
the relevant standard is the preponderance of the evidence.
In this investigation, I have examined two potential criminal offenses related to the "cold
case" investigation in Sandwich, Massachusetts:
1. Possession of a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs G.L ch. 269 §
10H.
2. Fraudulent claim of hours G.L. ch. 231, § 85BB
Possession of a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, G.L. ch. 269 §
10H:
Under this criminal code, a person violates the law—and consequently the Canton Police
Department's rules—if they carry or have control over a loaded firearm while under the
influence of intoxicating substances, including alcohol, marijuana, narcotic drugs,
depressants, stimulants, or toxic fumes, as defined in the relevant statutes. The penalty for
this offense can be a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment in a house of correction for up to
two and one-half years, or both.
The term "under the influence of alcohol" refers to the consumption of alcohol to a degree
that impairs a person’s ability to safely carry or control a loaded firearm. 9
In this case, relevant evidence includes Albert’s statements during his internal affairs
interview and a text message he sent to Proctor, which read, “It’s bad!! I was hungover for
sure today.”
During the internal affairs interview(s), Albert did not specifically recall ordering a beer at
Flanders Field but acknowledged the possibility. He stated he would take full responsibility
for having ordered one to two beers, although he could not recall the specific types. In the
supplemental interview Albert stated he probably order two drinks at the Treehouse.
Additionally, statements from Proctor during his State Police Internal Interview suggest that
Albert likely consumed two beers during dinner. It is also reasonable to conclude that Albert
had consumed at least one IPA and no more than two IPAs at the Treehouse.
Given that the dinner lasted one hour, and they spent no more than 30 minutes at the
Treehouse, it is reasonable to conclude that Albert did not consume excessive alcohol that
would make him intoxicated while armed.
Albert clarified that his text message, “I was hungover for sure today,” referred to his overall
fatigue from working a 16-hour shift the previous day, consuming drinks at the Treehouse
9 Commonwealth v. Veronneau, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 477, 478 (2016)
11
and Flanders Field after the interview, and consuming additional drinks at home. He
explained that the combination of these factors made him not feel 100% the next morning.
Based on the information available - including the number of drinks consumed, the travel
time between establishments, food intake and Albert’s tolerance for alcohol, there is no
evidence suggesting that Albert was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that would
violate the Canton Police Department’s rules regarding criminal conduct.
Fraudulent claim of hours G.L. ch. 231, § 85BB:
In response to police reform, Massachusetts enacted the fraudulent claim of hours statute,
which states:
“A law enforcement officer, as defined in section 1 of chapter 6E, who
knowingly submits a false or fraudulent claim of hours worked for
payment to a state agency, city, town, or any relevant authority, and
receives payment for such a claim, or knowingly makes, uses, or causes
to be made or used a false record or statement related to such a claim,
shall be punished by a fine of three times the amount of the fraudulent
wages paid or by imprisonment for up to two years. This also applies to
anyone who conspires to commit a violation of this section.” 10
This portion of the investigation was prompted by a text message from Albert to
Proctor on July 18, 2022, in which Albert wrote, “soak up the overtime,” following a
discussion about stopping for dinner. Albert later stated that this was intended as a
“tongue-in-cheek joke” and was simply referring to their dinner stop.
Timeline Analysis:
The timeline provided by Albert during his internal affairs interview was cross-checked with
Google Maps data from August 20, 2024. Although this data was from two years after the
incident, it helps verify the reasonableness of the timeline: 11
• Travel from Canton to Sandwich: Approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes
• Interview in Sandwich: Approximately 1 to 1.5 hours
• Stop at the Treehouse: Approximately 30 minutes
• Drive to Flanders Field in Hanover: Estimated 45 minutes to 1 hour
• Dinner at Flanders Field: 1 hour
• Drive from Hanover to Canton Police Department: 40-45 minutes
• Dropped off at approximately 10:20 p.m.
10ALM GL ch. 231, § 85BB
11This investigator attempted to obtain automated vehicle location (AVL) data, which was not available and
cell phone data; records which were not provided due to the investigative exemption under the public records
law.
12
Dinner Break:
Gallagher’s interview confirmed that taking a dinner break during an investigation is
reasonable and that an hour for dinner at a restaurant aligns with Departmental norms. Given
this context and the corroboration of Albert’s timeline with text messages and other provided
information, it does not appear that Albert violated the Canton Police Department’s rules
regarding fraudulent claims of hours worked.
Note on Timeline:
The timeline was verified using Google Maps, which, although not from the exact date,
provides a reasonable approximation. Albert’s times did not significantly deviate from the
plausible range. For instance, Google Maps indicated a travel time from Canton to Sandwich
of 1 hour and 6 minutes, while Albert estimated 1 to 1.5 hours. Proctor’s AVL and cell phone
location data was requested but was not available for this verification.
Overtime:
Albert recorded 7 hours of overtime 4 p.m. until 11 p.m. Given the practice within the police
department of paying three-hour minimum for overtime and hourly payment thereafter
without paying fractional hours, 7 hours of compensation is reasonable based on the timeline
set out above.
Based on this information available, I do not find evidence that Albert submitted a fraudulent
claim of hours worked. Therefore, he did not violate the criminal conduct rule of the Canton
Police Department.
Possession or Use of Alcohol
Rule 14.6 of the Canton Police Department Rules and Regulations states:
“Officers shall not possess and/ or use alcohol on duty other than in an
authorized duty capacity. Officers shall not report for duty or be on
duty while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or with an odor of
alcoholic beverage on their breath.”
To determine if this policy was violated, I reviewed Albert’s interview, text messages
between Proctor and Albert, and Proctor’s internal affairs interview.12
1. Albert’s Internal Interview:
12Trooper Proctor’s internal affairs interview was provided by the State Police as part of this internal
investigation. Please note that this document is not a public record and is considered confidential due to the
ongoing nature of the investigation(s).
13
Albert did not specifically recall ordering a beer but stated it was certainly possible. He
also stated that he would take full responsibility for ordering one to two beers, but he did
not recall what kind they were.
2. Proctor’s State Police Internal Interview:
Proctor stated during his interview he had one or two beers.
Based on the information available, I do find by the preponderance of the evidence that
Albert used alcohol on duty without authorization in violation of this rule and regulation.
Conduct Unbecoming an Officer
Rule 4.02 of the Canton Police Department Rules and Regulations states in pertinent
part:
“Officers shall not commit any specific act or acts of improper, un lawful,
disorderly or intemperate conduct, whether on or off duty, which reflect(s)
discredit or reflect(s) unfavorably upon the officer, upon other officers or
upon the police department. Officers shall conduct themselves at all times,
both on and off duty, in such a manner as to reflect most favorably on the
department and its members.”
The evidence reviewed and examined certainly indicates that Albert ordered and drank two
beers at dinner, violating Rule 14.6 Possession or Use of Alcohol. The violation was improper
and reflected unfavorably on Albert, members of the Canton Police Department and the Canton
Police Department.
Based on the available evidence, I do find by the preponderance of the evidence that
Albert’s conduct was unbecoming an officer, as he ordered and drank alcohol on duty
without authorization in violation of this rule and regulation.
Items of Identification (Badge)
During the Karen Read trial, Proctor testified that he texted Albert on July 20, 2022, saying,
“found your badge in my cruiser this morning.” This testimony raised the question of
whether Albert violated Rule 12.12 concerning items of identification.
Rule 12.12 states:
Officers shall be responsible for the items of identification issued to
them as an officer of the department, including but not limited to, the
police badge, any numbered hat badge or name plate, and the police
identification card. They shall not permit any other person to borrow
or use the items of identification issued to them by the department.
14
Any loss of such items shall be reported immediately by the officer to
the Chief of Police together with a written report of the circumstances
leading to such loss.
Albert’s Explanation:
Albert stated during his interview that he removed the badge belt clip from his belt and
placed it face down in the console of Proctor’s vehicle while he went into Flanders Field
Restaurant. He forgot to retrieve it when he was dropped off.
Albert’s badge remained in a State Police cruiser overnight and he immediately had it
returned to him the next morning before he went to work.
Gallagher’s Interview:
Gallagher was asked during his interview whether Albert reported his badge missing. He
confirmed that he did not report the badge as missing or lost. Gallagher also mentioned
that, based on his experience, a badge left in an unmarked police cruiser overnight would
not typically be considered lost. He noted that officers often remove their badge belt clips
for comfort while seated and would not generally consider such an action as a loss or
misplacement.
Common Practices:
Based on common practices within the police field, it is not unusual for detectives to
remove their badge belt clips and place them in the console, glove box, or door pocket of
their assigned cruiser or personal vehicle. Considering the statements from Gallagher and
Albert, I do not believe this action constitutes a violation of the relevant rule or regulation.
Considering Albert's explanation, Gallagher’s testimony, and common police practices, I
do not believe Albert’s actions constitute a violation of Rule 12.12.
Care and Security of Firearms
On July 20, 2022, a series of text messages between Albert and Proctor raised concerns about
the possible violation of Canton Police Department Rule 12.14 regarding the care and
security of firearms. The text exchange included the following:
• Proctor: “Found your badge in my cruiser this morning.”
• Proctor: “I can leave it in my locker at the gym, drop it off at ur station, or leave it in
my mailbox.”
• Albert: “My mailbox, did I take my gun?” followed by a wincing face emoji.
• Proctor: “Haha”
• Proctor: “What’s ur address? I will drop it off after the gym”
15
Ultimately, Proctor delivered the badge to Albert at the Canton Police Department.
This exchange prompted concerns about Rule 12.14, which states:
“Officers shall maintain their firearms service in proper working order
at all times and report any damage, loss or unserviceable condition
immediately to the Chief of Police or to their Commanding Officer. All
officers shall be personally responsible for the security and safekeeping
of said firearms at all times and shall not alter or repair any part of their
firearm service without the approval of the Chief of Police. While on
or off duty officers shall only carry their service firearms in a safety
holster issued or approved by the Chief of Police.
Officers shall not use or handle weapons or firearms in a careless or
imprudent manner.”
Albert Explanation:
Albert explained that he typically removes both his firearm and badge during
meals due to their cumbersome nature. He noted that Proctor’s cruiser was
equipped with both a safe and a lockable glove compartment. Albert
believed he secured the firearm in the glove compartment located directly in
front of him.
Proctor’s State Police Interview:
In his State Police interview, Proctor indicated that, to the best of his
recollection, Albert either secured the firearm and badge in a lockbox or, if
they did not fit, locked them in the glovebox. Proctor confirmed that the
items were secure.
Rule 12.14 requires that officers be personally responsible for the security and safekeeping of
their firearms at all times. This raises the question of if a locked glove compartment inside a
locked vehicle meets the security requirements for firearms.
Legal and Statutory Context:
The courts have held that a locked glove compartment might be considered adequate for
firearm storage under certain statutes 13. Additionally, the recent Massachusetts legislation,
"An Act Modernizing Firearms Laws," provides further clarity. The statute defines “secured
in a locked container” as:
“Secured in a container that is capable of being unlocked only by means
of a key, combination, or similar means, including in an unoccupied
motor vehicle, a locked trunk not accessible from the passenger
13 Commonwealth v. Reyes, 464 Mass. 245 (2013)
16
compartment, a locked console, or locked glovebox, and for purposes of a
common carrier in the course of the regular and ordinary transport of
firearms, locked access to any area containing firearms.”14
Given this legislative clarification and the circumstances of this case, placing the firearm in a
locked glove compartment inside a locked vehicle meets the requirements for secure storage.
Therefore, based on the evidence reviewed, I find that Rule 12.14 was not violated.
SUMMARY
I find that Albert violated the following policies:
1. Possession or Use of Alcohol
2. Conduct Unbecoming an Officer
I find that Albert did not violate the following policies:
1. Criminal Conduct
2. Items of Identification
3. Care and Security of Firearms
RECOMMENDATIONS
Overtime Management:
Specialty overtime for Detectives, School Resource Officers, and other designated
positions should be entered into the attendance system by a supervisor. Specifically, no
individual should be responsible for entering their own overtime. This task should be
performed by a person of at least one rank higher than the individual requesting the
overtime.
14 An Act modernizing firearm laws, Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024.
17
Rules and Regulations Review:
Use this investigation as an opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of the rules
and regulations with the entire department. In-person training sessions should be
conducted to ensure thorough understanding, followed by the distribution of updated
rules and regulations through a document management system that requires electronic
signatures from all personnel.
18
