Boston cop chastised for writing a fake arrest report so a friend's brother could have an excuse for missing a shift at work

The state Ethics Commission yesterday officially tut-tutted a veteran Boston cop who did a favor for a pal's brother who was basically on probation at his job at the MBTA by writing up a criminal complaint that the guy submitted to prove he had a better reason for missing his shift than simply oversleeping: Getting arrested for beating up his girlfriend.

In its "public education letter" to and about Officer James Clark, who is no longer listed in the BPD salary database, the board said it considered "adjudicatory proceedings" against him, but decided a public shaming, via an public explanation of what Clark did would better serve the public interest.

At issue is a criminal complaint for domestic violence that Clark, then serving in District D-14 in Brighton, wrote in July, 2016, involving a man the commission identified by the pseudonym of "Smith," who was the older brother of a friend of Clark's:

On May 13, 2016, Smith entered into a “Last Chance Agreement” with the MBTA. Under the Last Chance Agreement, Smith was subject to “immediate discharge” for any future violation of the MBTA attendance policy.

On July 4, 2016, Smith overslept and missed his MBTA shift. Smith told the MBTA that he had missed work on July 4th because he had been arrested.

On July 11, 2016, Smith provided his MBTA employee union liaison with a document appearing to be an Application for Criminal Complaint to the Brighton District Court purportedly for charges against Smith from an incident on July 4, 2016. On July 12th, Smith received notice from the MBTA of an abeyance of discipline pending the outcome of the criminal matter. MBTA officials quickly learned, however, that no criminal charges had in fact been filed with the court. On July 19, 2016, Smith resigned from his MBTA position in lieu of discharge. Smith admitted that he had overslept and that he had obtained the Application for Criminal Complaint from you.

The letter of shame continues:

The Application in question includes Smith’s full name and address under “information about accused,” and indicates that Smith was arrested on July 4, 2016, in Brighton. The Application lists a fictitious police officer’s name as the complainant and a fictitious police incident report number. The Application lists an offense code and description “Assault & Battery 209A.” The Application lists a female victim’s name and a place of offense. The form includes an illegible signature and is dated July 5, 2016.

According to Smith, he overslept on July 4, 2016, and was going to lose his job under the Last Chance Agreement. He “brainstormed” a way to save his job and called you to ask whether you could provide something to show he had been arrested. You told him there was nothing you could do, but Smith persisted.

You admitted under oath that you completed and provided the Application to Smith. You testified, however, that you did not know Smith intended to show the form to his employer, the MBTA. You also denied knowledge of Smith’s employment with the MBTA or the Last Chance Agreement. Rather, you stated that Smith called you, upset, because he had not returned home on the night of July 4, 2016, and had told his girlfriend that he had been arrested. He asked you for help.

You testified that you received Smith’s call while you were at roll call beginning your shift. According to your testimony, you determined that you could give Smith a paper Application because, while the paper forms were “obsolete” having been replaced by online complaint submissions, a civilian would likely not know the difference. ...

The Application was never filed with any court, nor was any information associated with the alleged incident entered into any BPD record system.

The commission then explains, for the people in the back of the room, that you are not supposed to do something like this. Just in case that isn't clear, the commissioner continues by pointing to the state conflict-of-interest law, which prohibits public employees from giving somebody "an unwarranted privilege of substantial value" that is not normally available to just any random person on the street. Still not convinced? The commission continues:

The false Application to support Smith’s false claim of arrest on July 4, 2016 was a privilege which you knowingly secured for Smith using your position as a BPD officer. This privilege was unwarranted as a crime had not occurred, an arrest had not been made, and the information contained within the Application was false. The sole legitimate use of a criminal complaint application is to document and present to the court information regarding potential criminal activity. You, by contrast, used the Application to fabricate an alibi for a friend.

The unwarranted privilege you secured for Smith was of substantial value. The Application falsely reporting his arrest was in fact substantially valuable to Smith as he intended to use it to maintain his paid employment with the MBTA. Even if you were unaware of Smith’s true intent, and even if you believed, as you testified, that Smith was going to use the Application to deceive his girlfriend regarding his whereabouts and thereby avoid or solve a domestic problem, you had reason to know, given the urgency and persistence with which he requested it, that the Application was of substantial value to Smith.