{"id":3827,"date":"2002-11-20T15:00:59","date_gmt":"2002-11-20T20:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=3827"},"modified":"2021-03-06T05:18:54","modified_gmt":"2021-03-06T10:18:54","slug":"testimony-in-plymouth-polygraph-case-weighed-police-officer-2-officials-await-magistrates-ruling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2002\/11\/20\/testimony-in-plymouth-polygraph-case-weighed-police-officer-2-officials-await-magistrates-ruling\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;Testimony in Plymouth Polygraph Case Weighed: Police Officer, 2 Officials Await Magistrate&#8217;s Ruling&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"entry\">\n\n\n<p>Tamara Race <a href=\"http:\/\/ledger.southofboston.com\/display\/inn_news\/news08.txt\">reports<\/a> for the <em>Patriot Ledger<\/em> of Quincy, Massachusetts. Excerpt: <\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>A clerk magistrate will rule early next week whether Plymouth Police Chief Robert Pomeroy and Town Manager Eleanor Beth should face criminal charges for forcing a police officer to take a lie-detector test or lose his job.<\/p><p>If convicted, the two would face a fine of $300 to $1,000 and forfeit their retirement pensions.<\/p><p>Because Plymouth police have a close working relationship with Plymouth court magistrates, from Falmouth District Court Assistant Clerk Magistrate Kenneth Halloran presided at yesterday&#8217;s hearing on a criminal-complaint application filed by Patrolman Kevin Furtado.<\/p><p>Furtado, Pomeroy and police union president Paul Boyle testified yesterday. Beth was not present at the hearing.<\/p><p>Furtado says Beth and Pomeroy in 1999 forced him to take a polygraph test as a condition of employment, in the wake of an allegation that he molested two boys, 5 and 7 years old.<\/p><p>Furtado&#8217;s attorney, Joseph Gallitano, told Halloran that such a request is illegal in the absence of a criminal investigation and that the criminal investigation conducted by former District Attorney Michael Sullivan had ended.<\/p><p>According to court records, the children&#8217;s parents called their pediatrician after becoming concerned about statements made by the younger child.<\/p><p>The boy told his parents that Furtado had groped his genitals during horseplay in Furtado&#8217;s pool. The boys, Furtado&#8217;s children and Furtado were playing in the pool at the time. The pediatrician spoke with both boys and filed a report with the state Department of Social Services. Sullivan launched an investigation based on that report.<\/p><p>The boys were subsequently interviewed and videotaped by professional sexual assault counselors with the district attorney&#8217;s office. During those interviews, the younger boy did not repeat the allegation he apparently made to the pediatrician.<\/p><p>&#8221;The district attorney in September wrote a letter to the chief saying the investigation was over and no charges would be filed,&#8221; Gallitano said.<\/p><p>In November 1999, prior to Furtado&#8217;s test, the boys&#8217; parents sent a letter to Pomeroy saying they believed nothing had happened to their sons and that the incident was exaggerated.<\/p><p>Sullivan turned the case back over to the police chief for administrative action only, Gallitano said.<\/p><p>&#8221;In all the case law, polygraphs are only allowed in the case of an ongoing criminal investigation,&#8221; he said. &#8221;It had to be done within the course of the criminal investigation, and the only action going forward at the time was administrative.&#8221;<\/p><p>Leonard Kesten, attorney for Pomeroy and Beth, said the chief had no intention of breaking any laws in asking Furtado to take the test.<\/p><p>&#8221;He read the case law and sought advice from the district attorney and town counsel before taking action,&#8221; Kesten said.<\/p><p>Pomeroy said he obtained immunity for Furtado as requested by police union attorney William Strauss and then reiterated his demand that the officer take the test or lose his job.<\/p><p>&#8221;No one objected to the test after Kevin Furtado received immunity from prosecution,&#8221; Kesten said. &#8221;We wouldn&#8217;t be here if he had passed the test.&#8221;<\/p><p>Pomeroy indicated that he ordered the test to get some assurance that Furtado was innocent and to protect the town from future liability if the parents of the children had a change of heart and decided to sue.<\/p><p>Furtado was given two tests, one for each of the children, Pomeroy testified. He said a written report of the test results stated that Furtado&#8217;s answers to &#8221;pertinent&#8221; questions were &#8221;deceptive.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Tamara Race reports for the Patriot Ledger of Quincy, Massachusetts. Excerpt: A clerk magistrate will rule early next week whether Plymouth Police Chief Robert Pomeroy and Town Manager Eleanor Beth should face criminal charges for forcing a police officer to take a lie-detector test or lose his job. If convicted, the two would face a &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[32,378],"class_list":{"0":"post-3827","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"tag-labor","8":"tag-massachusetts","9":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3827","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3827"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3827\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3828,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3827\/revisions\/3828"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3827"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3827"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3827"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}