Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Police Practices topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Danvers police describe expanded hate‑crimes training, clarify ICE detainer policy
Summary
Lieutenant Sullivan told the Human Rights and Inclusion Committee that Danvers officers received new in‑service material on historic government actions and hate‑crime reporting, and reiterated that Massachusetts agencies will not hold people solely on ICE detainers.
Lieutenant Sullivan, a Danvers police lieutenant, told the Town of Danvers Human Rights and Inclusion Committee that recent statewide trainings have added historical context to hate‑crime and hate‑group instruction and underscored barriers that keep people from reporting crimes.
The lieutenant said the Faith‑Based Organizations Safety and Security Seminar at Gillette Stadium and the Criminal Justice Training Council’s in‑service block included material tracing government and police actions from 1865 onward and asked officers to consider how those actions affect trust. “It really took some time to focus on government actors,” Lieutenant Sullivan said, adding that the program links historical events — from lynching and Jim Crow to more recent incidents — to modern community‑police interactions.
The training, Sullivan said, also emphasized practical barriers victims report, including mistrust of police and courts. He described the sessions as “continuing education” rolled out statewide by the Criminal Justice Training Council (referred to in the meeting as MPTC).
Sullivan also reviewed Danvers Police policy on Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers. “ICE... detainers are not warrants,” he said. He told the committee that Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case law and longstanding practice prohibit holding a person solely on an ICE detainer; local officers document receipt of a detainer but do not continue detention based on it alone. Sullivan said Danvers officers will continue to work with state and federal partners on investigations that involve serious crimes — for example, drug trafficking, human trafficking and violent crime — but not on enforcement of federal immigration law.
On procedures, Sullivan described how arrests tied to Massachusetts warrants are handled through the Salem District Court and how bail clerks determine release conditions. He noted a recent change removing a formerly required $40 bail clerk fee for personal recognizance releases, saying the courts now set bail policies, not police.
Committee members asked whether ICE could act independently in Danvers; Sullivan replied that federal agents could, but he said Danvers Police would not participate in immigration enforcement. Members also pressed for clearer public explanations when officers tell residents “there is nothing we can do.” Sullivan described two recent case examples — one involving alleged harassment with a harassment prevention order and another involving threats — to explain the difference between a resident’s experience and the elements prosecutors must prove. He urged residents to continue filing reports so patterns can be identified and, when appropriate, aggregated reports can support criminal charges or referrals to the Attorney General’s office.
Sullivan highlighted one example where separate municipal reports from Danvers, Saugus and Boston were later combined by the Attorney General’s office into larger indictments related to a nationalist group’s signs along local trails.
The committee thanked Sullivan for the detailed report and for committing to work with department leadership to improve how officers explain legal limits to residents.
