Roxbury Man Can Sue Framingham Over Violent Traffic Stop: SJC

FRAMINGHAM, MA — The Supreme Judicial Court will allow a Roxbury man to sue Framingham over a 2012 traffic stop where he claims five officers used excessive force and a racial slur.

Mark Tinsley was convicted in criminal court of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and carrying a dangerous weapon in connection to the incident. He filed a civil suit against Framingham in 2014 during his criminal trial. But because he was found guilty, Framingham succeeded in getting his civil suit tossed from court.

Thursday's SJC ruling found that Tinsley can sue based on what happened to him after his arrest.

"Even where the use of force to effect an arrest is reasonable in response to an individual's resistance, the continued use of force may well be unreasonable, as an individual's conduct prior to arrest or during an arrest does not authorize a violation of his or her constitutional rights," the SJC decision says.

The original civil suit revolved around a traffic stop that occurred in May 2012 near Waverley and Winthrop streets. After officers Joseph Godino and Greg Reardon pulled him over, Tinsley refused their order to get out of his car. Court documents say that the officers feared Tinsley was reaching for a weapon.

Two other officers, Dinis Avila and Jason Lurie, arrived on the scene and helped pull Tinsley was out of the car. During the struggle, Tinsley reportedly hit several officers, but stopped resisting once outside the car, according to court documents.

"Once on the ground, Tinsley did not resist," the SJC decision says. "He tried to put his hands behind his back so that the police officers would handcuff him and thus, he thought, stop hitting him. The police officers did not stop. Reardon struck Tinsley's collarbone and upper shoulder, and stomped on Tinsley's left hand. Lurie sprayed Tinsley with pepper spray."

A fifth officer, James Green, arrived, and at one point called Tinsley a "f------ n-----," court records say. Green denied that claim during Tinsley's criminal trial.

The SJC found that Tinsley's criminal convictions were based on what happened while he was still in his car. A successful civil suit over the events inside the car could contradict the criminal convictions, which is not lawful, the SJC decision says. However, Tinsley can sue over what happened while he was on the ground outside the car, the decision says.

A judge found that barring a suit like Tinsley's could prevent future civil actions over excessive force.

"To hold differently would implicitly permit police officers, in response to a resisting individual, to exert as much force as they so choose 'and be shielded from accountability under civil law,' so long as the prosecutor could successfully convict the individual of resisting arrest," the decision said.

The SJC decision did ban Tinsley from suing the police officers individually. The suit is being sent back to the trial court for deliberation, according to the decision.