Former Police Chief Pays Ethics Fine

Former Attleboro Police Chief Richard Pierce paid a $3,500 fine to the State Ethics Commission as part of an agreement in which he admitted to violating Massachusetts' conflict of interest law during the investigation of his son, who at the time was an officer in the . The commission approved the agreement (which is attached to this article) on Wednesday, according to a press release from the commission.

after he was told by Mayor Kevin Dumas that he would otherwise have to face disciplinary action due to the handling of the investigation of his son Richard Pierce Jr., who used a Taser on a suspect during a February 2010 arrest. The younger Pierce was later fired from the department.

The suspect filed a $400,000 lawsuit against the city, prompting the department to due an internal investigation. 

Pierce provided his son with a copy of a department shift commander's report stating the younger Pierce had violated department policy, and should be disciplined. This happened despite an official internal investigation not having started, according to the Ethics Commission.

Pierce advised his son to contact his union representative and told him he could not longer be involved in the matter because of conflict of interest concerns.

Also, prior to the release of the shift commander's report, the elder Pierce had compiled arrest reports, noticed no Taser Use Report had been filed (which is required by department policy) and asked a lieutenant to determine whether a Taser had been used, according to the commission.

The commission further wrote that after learning his son had used a Taser, Pierce told the lieutenant to look for a Taser report, and if he did not find one, he should allow his son to submit a new report despite the arrest having happened five months earlier. Pierce also asked the shift commander whether he had seen a Taser report.

The commission determined Pierce violated the state law prohibiting "a municipal employee from participating as such an employee in a particular matter in which to his knowledge, he or an immediate family member has a financial interest."

The commission wrote, "As Chief Pierce's son, Pierce Jr. is a member of Chief Pierce's immediate family. Pierce Jr. had a financial interest in the investigation because it could result in a decision whether to suspend or terminate him. Accordingly, by so participating as chief in a particular matter in which he knew his son had a financial interest, Chief Pierce repeatedly violated [the state law]."