Ex-State Police Superintendent Blasts Trooper In Lawsuit Rebuttal

Printed from: https://newbostonpost.com/2018/02/12/ex-state-police-superintendent-blasts-trooper-in-lawsuit-rebuttal/

Former State Police Superintendent Colonel Richard D. McKeon, one of several top law enforcement officials named in an explosive lawsuit by a state trooper who claims he was ordered to scrub incriminating details from an arrest report involving a prominent judge’s daughter, fired back recently, claiming in his motion to dismiss that the trooper’s allegations are “scurrilous” and “fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 

McKeon, who retired along with his second-in-command soon after State Trooper Ryan Sceviour filed a federal lawsuit alleging a planned cover-up launched by top Worcester County law officials resulted in him being issued a reprimand for including salacious details in his arrest report of Ali Bibaud, joined State Police Major Susan Anderson in denying that any conspiracy took place. 

McKeon in his answer to Sceviour’s lawsuit claims the trooper cannot state a claim “because he fails to allege that Colonel McKeon caused a denial of Plaintiffs’ rights under the constitution or federal law.”

McKeon pointed out that Sceviour was never docked any pay, and included the trooper’s negative observation report as an exhibit:



Sceviour’s lawsuit claims McKeon and others plotted together to “enter into an agreement to coerce Trooper Sceviour to produce an altered report regarding the arrest” of 30-year-old Alli Bibaud, daughter of Dudley District Court Judge Timothy Bibaud.

Sceviour’s report documents his October 16 experience responding to a car accident that occurred north of Worcester on Interstate 190. He recalled in his report encountering what he described as a visibly impaired Bibaud, who later failed several field sobriety tests. Sceviour, following a search of Bibaud’s car, discovered heroin, whereupon Bibaud allegedly proceeded to tell him and other officer of her father’s position as judge. One of the most explosive details documented by Sceviour involved Bibaud allegedly offering his sexual favors in exchange for leniency, in addition to voluntarily telling police that she had scored the illegal drugs via sex as well.

Sceviour has alleged that he wound up facing a reprimand over his decision to include the lurid details in Bibaud’s report, and claimed he was ordered to sign off on an edited version of the report.

McKeon’s inclusion of Sceviour’s negative observation report appears to point blame at Sceviour for including the details, which McKeon claims were not pertinent to the case. Sceviour’s report states that he was reprimanded for “the negative and derogatory statements included within the gist of your report.” 

“These statements were not elements of the crime nor did they contribute to probable cause,” the observation report states. “Inappropriate commentary should not be included in future reports.”

Sceviour in his lawsuit alleges he was denied his constitutional rights in order to shield a judge’s daughter from embarrassment, a point which McKeon disputed in his response. 

“Trooper Sceviour does not allege that his employment was terminated or that he lost any amount of pay,” McKeon asserted in his response. “Employment actions short of termination or without a loss of salary, or the mere threat of such action, do not implicate an employees’ property interests.”

McKeon added in his response the following:

“Trooper Sceviour was given a written observation report. He was not demoted, he did not lose pay, and he did not lose his job. A
full-blown hearing would have been excessive in light of the minimal consequences of the actions taken against him. Trooper Sceviour acknowledges that he was represented by a union representative, that supervisors met with him to discuss the reprimand, and that he had the opportunity to express his views during that meeting. Although Trooper Sceviour disagrees with the decision to issue an Observation Report, he alleges no facts suggesting he was subjected to a procedurally deficient process.”

Sceviour’s attorney, Leonard H. Kesten of Boston, told the NewBostonPost on Monday that he is “confident” that McKeon’s motion to dismiss will be quashed.

Speaking about the disciplinary notice submitted as an exhibit, Kesten countered that Sceviour in fact was ordered to submit an altered report.

“If he (Sceviour) disobeyed that order he would be subject to termination for insubordination, no question about it,” Kesten said. “Don’t forget he was also issued this disciplinary notice for writing the report, but then he was ordered to create an altered report.

“When you get a direct order in a paramilitary organization like the State Police, if you disobey that order, you’re terminated.”

Kesten also reiterated another significant accusation he has previously lodged — Anderson and additional superior officers told Sceviour and his colleague who has likewise filed a federal complaint, drug testing expert and fellow State Trooper Ali Rei, that the order to change the report came from the top in the form of state Public Safety and Security Secretary Daniel Bennett. Bennett through a spokesman has denied this allegation. 

McKeon is being represented by Quincy-based attorney George C. McMahon. Court records additionally show that on Monday McKeon retained the services of Boston-based attorney Kristen Schuler Scammon, a partner at the law firm Torres, Scammon, Hincks & Day. 

McKeon filed his response on Feb. 6. 

Like Anderson, McKeon indicated in his response that he is entitled to qualified immunity, a legal status that shields government officials — especially law enforcement officers — from civil lawsuits that fail to establish whether officials violated clearly established constitutional rights, where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 

A scheduling conference is slated for Feb. 26. 

Read McKeon’s response:

2017-02-06 McKeon Response to Sceviour Lawsuit by Evan on Scribd