Swampscott Police Union Fires Back Over Protest Arrest Probe

SWAMPSCOTT, MA – The building tensions amid dueling protests in Swampscott near Gov. Charlie Baker's home over the past 40 weeks have spilled over into a dispute between the town's police union and town officials seeking an internal investigation into an arrest last month.

After Police Chief Ronald Madigan and town officials announced the investigation into the Dec. 12 arrest of Ernest Jean-Jacques, who is accused of assaulting a Swampscott woman, Linda Greenberg, after she threw water on him, the Swampscott Police Union fired back with a letter defending its actions as unbiased.

Jean-Jacques has denied the assault, according to reports, with Madigan and town officials initiating the internal investigation after they said they reviewed video of the incident.

"We have a police department that stands in opposition to hate and racism,” Madigan said during last week's Board of Selectmen meeting. "One of the things I am very concerned about is, to some extent, the trust and the confidence in our police department appears to have been eroded."

Swampscott Board of Selectmen Peter Spellios said he welcomed the investigation after reviewing some of the evidence himself: "I am concerned about the facts that seem to be hard to reconcile at the moment based on my own observations.

"It's really important that this review be done and that we correct any injustice if an injustice is there. And that we implement any reform to the extent that any reform is needed to make sure mistakes don't happen, to the extent that any mistakes happened."

But the Swampscott Police Union Local 417 shot back in a public letter on Friday, saying that it is with "utmost disappointment" that it felt the need to defend itself against the premise of the investigation.

"We respectfully implore the citizens of Swampscott and those visiting our community to appreciate that a police officer's role is not that of judge or jury," the Union said. "When probable cause for a crime occurs, it is our obligation, under the oath we swore as officers of the law, to act in accordance with the judicial process, regardless of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender identity, disability, sexual orientation or political beliefs.

"It is disheartening that the tone of the aforementioned documents from the Office of the Select Board suggests that the officers of the Swampscott Police Department acted in any way unlawfully, unprofessionally or unethically in regard to race."

Did you find this article useful? Invite a friend to subscribe to Patch.

The dispute comes as the public comment portion of the Board of Selectmen meeting included three impassioned pleas for the town to do more to restrict organizer Dianna Ploss, a pro-Donald Trump supporter, from conducting her weekly protests, which videos have repeatedly shown are often filled with racially divisive rhetoric.

Legal counsel invited to speak at the meeting reiterated that the town is limited in what it can do to curtail the free-speech rights of protestors on town property where protest has been traditionally allowed, or to restrict the counterprotests from groups supporting Black Lives Matter that have led to intense verbal sparring over the past nine months.

"Underlying everything we do, we're being careful to be neutral," Madigan noted. "Whatever our own personal beliefs, and our political affiliations, we've separated ourselves from that."

Town Administrator Sean Fitzgerald echoed Board sentiments that the town seeks to be "anti-racist" and as inclusive as possible, however, Spellios acknowledged it has been told the town cannot implement any regulations or measures that are based on the content of anyone's speech.

"It is safe to say that everybody on this Board, and I can speak for them because I've heard from them and they've heard from me, are bothered and upset by the protests," Spellios said. "Both in the face of our own political beliefs, but even irregardless of our own political beliefs. They are upsetting and they are disturbing. And while we all fully embrace the First Amendment, I will actually say that they are mostly unwelcome. ...

"Stuff is being done. But what is being done is not what some people want to be done. What each of us has learned throughout this process is that public safety forces you to prioritize, and make choices along those lines, and what is clear is that de-escalation is the top priority in almost every situation – not legal exposure, not concern, but de-escalation and public safety. That is the driving force.

"Convenience, and our own comfort, unfortunately, and our own sense of being offended, unfortunately, falls down on that list behind de-escalation and public safety. That shouldn't make any of us feel good. It doesn't make me feel good. But it is a bit of a reality."

(Scott Souza is a Patch field editor covering Beverly, Danvers, Marblehead, Peabody, Salem and Swampscott. He can be reached at Scott.Souza@Patch.com. Twitter: @Scott_Souza.)