Close
Current temperature in Boston - 62 °
BECOME A MEMBER
Get access to a personalized news feed, our newsletter and exclusive discounts on everything from shows to local restaurants, All for free.
Already a member? Sign in.
The Bay State Banner
BACK TO TOP
The Bay State Banner
POST AN AD SIGN IN

Trending Articles

Sarah-Ann Shaw, Boston's reporting legend, 90

Uncle Nearest Premium Whiskey honors first African American Master Distiller’s legacy

NAACP urges Black student-athletes to consider alternatives to Florida public schools

READ PRINT EDITION

SJC ruling clears way for police abuse suits

Ruling will allow plaintiffs to sue cops despite being hit with ‘cover charges’

Morgan C. Mullings
Staff reporter covering state and local politics. Report for America Corps Member. VIEW BIO

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last week issued three landmark decisions that fight race-based policing and make it easier for victims of racial profiling to prove their cases in court.

One of last Thursday’s rulings will allow a Roxbury man, Mark Tinsley, to sue the officers who allegedly assaulted him in 2012. He was later convicted of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, carrying a dangerous weapon and assaulting a police officer. These convictions would stop him from being able to file a civil suit over what happened between him and the officers once they forcibly removed him from his car during a traffic stop.

“The whole case was based on me speeding,” Tinsley told the Banner. “And they wrote me a ticket. Then they dismissed the ticket because they couldn’t prove I was speeding,” he said.

At the time, Framingham authorities said Tinsley elbowed and punched an officer while being dragged from his car. In his original suit, Tinsley claims that after this, officers punched and kicked him in the head, broke his finger and called him a “f—–g n—-r.”

“I felt so low. I lost everything. I had to get back my self-esteem, my confidence, everything,” Tinsley said.

His civil suit was rejected multiple times on the grounds that his conviction stood in the way of any allegations against the officers.

Courts previously used the Heck v. Humphrey ruling, which prevents plaintiffs convicted of a crime from using a civil suit to attack that conviction.

“His convictions, narrowly construed, were based on his conduct only while he was inside his vehicle,” the decision reads, claiming Tinsley can’t challenge what he was convicted of inside his car. “Our conclusion does not, however, bar the claims that Tinsley bases on the events that occurred after the police officers forcibly removed him from his vehicle,” the judges wrote.

Robert Johnson, Tinsley’s attorney, is now able to file a civil suit for his client on several civil rights claims.

“If you kick someone in the head, and while you’re kicking them, you say ‘f—–g n—-r’ to them, you’re tending to inflict emotional distress,” said Johnson. “The bottom line is that now Tinsley can have his day in court.”

After the incident, Tinsley said, his previous criminal record may have made it hard for him to get a speedy trial and the right lawyer.

“When I went to court, and I went through the judicial system, and saw how they try to hide everything, they try to use my past, and say that I didn’t have any rights, it’s a messed up feeling,” he said.

Max Stern, a civil rights lawyer, said that charges like the ones used against Tinsley are often used to cover abusive conduct by police.

“When the police overreact, they often bring what are colloquially called ‘cover charges.’ That is, charges which are motivated by a desire to protect the officer from disciplinary or other charges against them,” he said.

Stern says the decision will make it more likely in the future that police abuses can be remedied.

“Even if that person is convicted, if that person has been beaten up or otherwise abused, he can still seek redress,” he said.

The other two SJC rulings, both unanimous, aim to remove barriers to proving that racial profiling led to a traffic stop and remove “nervous and evasive behavior” as an indicator of suspicious activity.

“Right now, I’m kind of excited, I’m kind of happy, because I’m somewhat getting justice,” Tinsley said. “But I still have to deal with the trauma.”

His hope is that his case will make a difference in the lives of his children.

The SJC sent the case back to Middlesex Superior Court with most of the civil charges reinstated. Tinsley’s attorney expects a settlement, because “there’s no higher court you can go to,” Johnson said.