A state public database shows four Springfield police officers had sustained misconduct findings classified as criminal conduct, some resulting in suspensions of more than 30 days. Another officer was suspended for 60 working days for conduct unbecoming and other policy violations. Authorities disciplined others for excessive force, alcohol or drug misconduct, or violations serious enough to result in “last-chance” agreements.
One officer was disciplined over a shooting classified as a sustained use-of-force matter.
But what does that mean?
The Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission publishes officers’ names, misconduct categories and disciplinary outcomes. But the records don’t say what actually happened, what evidence investigators uncovered or why departments issued penalties.
For about a year, I’ve been trying to find out more.
In January, I requested the underlying internal affairs investigations and disciplinary records for 15 Springfield officers whose misconduct histories appeared in the databases I examined.
POST records published Oct. 16 show 14 of those officers as certified and affiliated with the Springfield Police Department. The remaining officer, Franklyn McNeil, was certified when I filed my request but retired in May.
Since its initial estimate in February, Springfield has maintained that the records I requested totaled 4,927 pages, even after I narrowed my request in June to leave out multiple categories of documents.
The city initially demanded $6,208.75 for the files. After seven appeals, it still wants $2,103, which I can’t afford.
On Oct. 27, Massachusetts Supervisor of Records Manza Arthur upheld the estimate and closed my seventh appeal.
But the next day, after I questioned discrepancies in the city’s handwritten page counts, Assistant City Solicitor Sebastian Korth said a recount had increased the total from 4,927 to 6,629 pages. On Oct. 30, he confirmed that the $2,103 estimate remained unchanged, but offered to reduce it to $1,222.83 if I excluded 19 trial and appeal transcripts from my request.
In May, as four years of federal oversight of the Springfield Police Department ended, Superintendent Lawrence Akers said “transparency and accountability remain permanent expectations” for the agency.
Scope of the investigation
Because POST’s databases are updated daily, my investigation does not include every case in its public records. It focuses on officers and incidents listed on the commission’s website in fall 2025 and early 2026, when I began logging onto it.
From that, I compiled a list of western Massachusetts officers with serious, sustained misconduct findings who were still working in law enforcement, including some who changed departments or received promotions.
I then requested records from about 10 Massachusetts police departments, prosecutors’ offices and other agencies.
What POST’s summaries leave out
Police investigative files I obtained from other departments provided substantially more detail about domestic violence allegations, use-of-force incidents and other serious misconduct than POST’s brief disciplinary summaries. They also documented how law enforcement officials investigated those incidents and made decisions about whether officers could keep their jobs.
Below are two examples of several that show how much those summaries can leave unexplained.
Agawam Officer Steven Hopkins’ POST entry lists “Drunk on Duty” and a suspension of one to five days. Internal affairs records say he arrived late for a paid detail in uniform at Six Flags New England in 2018, where a detective saw him driving on the grounds. Supervisors took his firearm and removed him from duty. At police headquarters around 90 minutes later, investigators say breath tests registered blood alcohol content readings of 0.237 and 0.238, nearly three times the legal driving limit. Hopkins later signed a last-chance agreement.
In August 2020, police in Suffield, Connecticut, reported finding Hopkins heavily intoxicated outside his pickup truck, which had a shredded tire. According to Agawam’s internal affairs report, he later admitted to investigators that he had been driving while intoxicated. He was not criminally charged or arrested. In a letter to the mayor, Chief Eric Gillis acknowledged that keeping Hopkins on the force posed a risk to the department. Disciplinary records show he returned to work immediately, serving his 30-day suspension in 10-day increments over three months.
Officer Eliesett Rodriguez’s POST entry lists findings of “Other form of untruthfulness” and “Unfit for duty/danger to public” while he worked for the Southbridge Police Department.
According to Southbridge’s investigative file, Rodriguez allegedly called a man a “rat” in August 2020, then told a suspected drug dealer that the man was giving police information about his drug sales. The report says the suspected dealer then assaulted the alleged informant.
Investigators also reported that Rodriguez “offered no assistance” to officers for 21 minutes during the disturbance. In his report, Deputy Chief Jose Dingui recommended Rodriguez’s immediate termination for violating a 2018 last-chance agreement. Department records show Rodriguez resigned effective Sept. 25, 2020, and joined the Chicopee Police Department two months later.
A Chicopee police spokesperson said Nov. 3 that Rodriguez has faced no complaints or investigations since joining the department.
Springfield records
On Jan. 23, I filed my records request with Springfield. Information about the misconduct described below came from POST’s public databases, media reports, news releases and court records, but not the underlying internal affairs files the city has yet to provide.
Christian Cicero and Daniel Billingsley each had sustained criminal-conduct findings on May 7, 2015, and Feb. 13, 2019. POST listed suspensions of more than 30 days for both officers on both dates.
Igor Basovskiy had sustained findings classified as other criminal conduct on those same dates, but his suspensions ranged from one to five days.
The findings appear to be connected to an assault involving off-duty Springfield police officers outside Nathan Bill’s Bar and Restaurant in April 2015. Cicero and Billingsley were each convicted of three misdemeanor assault and battery counts in 2022. The Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld their convictions in July 2025.
In 2019, the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General said Basovskiy, Cicero and Billingsley were indicted in the incident. Basovskiy’s charges were later dismissed, and he returned to work in March 2020, according to MassLive.
Springfield’s Board of Police Commissioners voted in November 2022 to reinstate Cicero and Billingsley, a decision Mayor Domenic Sarno publicly criticized.
POST’s Oct. 16 records list all three officers as certified and affiliated with the Springfield Police Department. Billingsley’s employment status is marked “Out on Leave,” but the records don’t explain why.
Another officer, Luis Delgado, received a one-to-five-day suspension after a sustained criminal-conduct finding on June 12, 2021. I searched his name in the Massachusetts Trial Court’s public database but could not find a criminal case linked to him. A court administrator previously told me the name search function on that database is “somewhat of a common problem.” I’m awaiting his response to a Nov. 2 email regarding Delgado.
Ryan Walsh, a Springfield police spokesperson, told me, “Any investigation that has the possibility of criminal charges is also sent to the District Attorney’s office for their review.”
Other officers received lengthy suspensions for different types of misconduct.
Marlon Bryan was suspended for 60 working days over multiple sustained counts of “conduct unbecoming” and “other form of untruthfulness” in a listing dated July 24, 2023.
Thomas Manzi and Ramon Sierra Jr. each received suspensions longer than 30 days and last-chance agreements. Manzi’s sustained conduct-unbecoming finding was dated Nov. 19, 2020, while Sierra’s alcohol- or drug-abuse finding was dated Jan. 12, 2017.
Samantar Muse had two sustained findings in 2021, each with a suspension of over 30 days. A July 31 finding involved alcohol or drug abuse. The second, dated Sept. 1, involved a motor vehicle accident, unsafe operation or damage.
Excessive force, a shooting and subsequent promotions
POST records show several Springfield officers had sustained findings involving police use of force.
Cicero was ordered to undergo retraining after a separate excessive, nondeadly force finding on March 13, 2018.
Angel Perez also received retraining for excessive, nondeadly force in a sustained matter dated Sept. 21, 2018.
POST classified Eric Blair’s officer-involved shooting on June 3, 2011, as a sustained use-of-force matter, with retraining listed as the disciplinary outcome.
Franklyn McNeil had three sustained excessive-force findings. The first, dated April 26, 1997, resulted in a written reprimand. The other two, on June 6, 1999, and April 19, 2002, led to retraining.
Matthew Longo received a six- to 29-day suspension following a sustained excessive, nondeadly force finding dated Jan. 28, 2012.
In June 2025, Springfield promoted Longo and Luis Delgado to sergeant.
Five months earlier, the city promoted Christopher Collins to captain. POST records show Collins had sustained misconduct findings from 2001 through 2017 involving alcohol or drug abuse, improper firearm use or storage and conduct unbecoming.
Patrick Denault had four sustained conduct-unbecoming findings between 2018 and 2019. Springfield promoted him to sergeant in 2021.
Juan Rosario had sustained conduct-unbecoming findings in 1997 and 2008. The city promoted him to captain in July 2024.
Walsh said, “In terms of promotions, the department follows all laws and guidelines set forth by the Civil Service Commission.”
How Springfield calculated its fees
In my records request, I asked Springfield for investigative reports, witness statements, findings, disciplinary decisions and agreements that imposed or modified discipline. I requested electronic records on a rolling basis, starting with final findings and disciplinary documents.
I also asked the city to redact legally protected information, like Social Security numbers, private medical records and identifying details about minors.
On Feb. 6, Springfield estimated that its files contained 4,927 pages requiring three minutes of review and redaction per page. Factoring in scanning time and the legally required two free hours, the proposed bill came out to $6,208.75.
Most agencies that fulfilled similar requests delivered records for free. Northampton charged $192.50 for investigative files on three officers and has released material on two so far. Southbridge initially wanted $200 for some of the records I requested, then released them for free after I challenged the charge.
The Springfield Police Department has just over 500 officers, making it the largest law enforcement agency in western Massachusetts and the third largest statewide after the Massachusetts State Police and the Boston Police Department. It also ranked third in sustained allegations in POST data published Oct. 13. I requested more records from Springfield than from the other agencies.
The dispute over my request has centered largely on what Springfield could charge to review and redact records. By February, the city had already identified and organized the investigative files, according to Assistant City Solicitor Stephen Roche.
After my appeals, Springfield reduced its estimate to $2,787.22 on May 6. It cut the projected review time from three to one minute per page but kept the 4,927-page count. It also included an additional attorney review of proposed redactions.
In a May 20 ruling, Supervisor of Records Manza Arthur questioned the need for a second attorney review. She also said Springfield could charge to remove information it’s legally required to keep confidential. But the city would need special approval to charge for redacting data it’s allowed, but not required, to leave out, like certain investigative material.
On June 5, I narrowed the request, excluding standalone clinical counseling notes, therapy plans, substance-abuse treatment records, firearms licensing applications, juvenile and child welfare records and restraining-order materials. But Springfield still based its estimate on 4,927 pages and 82.12 hours of review.
When I questioned that, city Public Records Coordinator Justin Morin wrote on June 18 that “much of the information you requested to be excluded is intertwined within the reports,” so extracting or redacting it would likely take the same time. He did not explain whether the city removed any documents or how much of the excluded material was “intertwined” with the records.
In October, Springfield cut the additional attorney review, lowering the estimate to $2,103, but kept the page count at 4,927 and the projected review time at 82.12 hours.
Page count changes after state approval
I challenged the estimate again on Oct. 13, asking why Springfield hadn’t reduced its anticipated review time or page count after I narrowed the request.
Springfield defended the estimate by pointing to information it would still need to review and potentially redact, including details involving domestic violence, criminal histories, treatment records, juvenile matters, sexual assault victims and certain personal information about public employees and their families.
But I wasn’t arguing that the city should release protected information like the names of children or possible victims. I was challenging the unchanged page count and estimated review hours.
On Oct. 27, Arthur upheld the city’s estimate, saying Springfield had adequately explained the time needed to produce the records. She acknowledged my objection but did not order a recalculation.
Arthur closed the appeal, my seventh, and suggested further communication to make the process more affordable, including potentially narrowing the request.
I had already narrowed it on June 5.
On Oct. 28, Springfield responded to my question about a discrepancy in a handwritten ledger shared with me in February. The ledger listed page counts for each officer in my request, but the total was less than half the 4,927 pages the city said it had identified.
Associate City Solicitor Sebastian Korth told me a former city attorney had calculated those figures. He said staff then retabulated the records. The new total was 6,629 pages, Korth wrote, “after screening for apparent redundancies.”
Korth said 19 transcripts from the criminal trial and appeal related to the 2015 incident outside Nathan Bill’s accounted for 3,699 pages.
He did not explain the ledger’s count or whether the revised totals reflected the records I excluded in June.
On Oct. 30, Korth confirmed that the $2,103 estimate stood despite the increase to 6,629 pages. He said excluding the 19 transcripts would reduce it to $1,222.83, but it would require me to modify my request.
Later that day, Korth declined to address my remaining inquiries about the conflicting page counts.
“Your questions are not a public records request,” he wrote. “The Public Records Law does not require public employees to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions.”
He also warned that Springfield would close my request “without producing any records” unless I paid the $2,103 fee or modified the request within 10 business days of Arthur’s Oct. 27 ruling.
In a Nov. 4 response, Walsh, the Springfield police spokesperson, said the city follows Massachusetts public records law and suggested narrowing the request to reduce costs. He did not address the discrepancies in the city’s page counts or explain why the estimate remained unchanged after I narrowed my request in June.
I still don’t have the records I asked for.
