Salem v. Stoneham Police Department, 1:22-cv-10350

Background

Plaintiff Mohamed Salem, an Egyptian immigrant and licensed real estate agent, was detained at gunpoint and handcuffed by Stoneham police while preparing a house for a showing after a suspicious person call.
Salem repeatedly tried to identify himself during the encounter and suffered emotional and physical distress due to his PTSD and preexisting medical condition, Trigeminal Neuralgia, which allegedly worsened afterwards.
Salem filed suit against the Town of Stoneham (all claims against the Police Department were dismissed), alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, as well as state law tort claims.
Both parties moved for summary judgment on various claims; the court's decision addresses cross-motions on all claims.
The key factual dispute centered on whether the police conduct (use of force and handcuffing) was justifiable as an investigative stop, and whether Stoneham's policies/customs around the use and reporting of force constituted municipal liability.
The court dismissed most intentional tort claims due to statutory immunity, but allowed several federal and state law claims to proceed to trial based on genuine factual disputes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fourth Amendment (Unreasonable Seizure,	Police used excessive force and detained without justification; Town	Detention was a valid Terry stop based on reasonable suspicion from 911 call;	Jury could find excessive force and unreasonable detention;
Excessive Force, Unlawful Detention)	customarily allowed excessive force without adequate supervision.	officers acted per their training and policy.	summary judgment denied to both parties.
Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection)	Salem was racially discriminated against; disparate treatment due	No evidence of discrimination; actions based on the situation not race.	No sufficient evidence to support a discrimination claim;
	to his skin color.		summary judgment for Town on this issue.
Municipal Liability under § 1983	Town's policy/custom allowed disregard of reporting requirements	No widespread custom or deliberate indifference; no pattern of prior incidents.	Jury could find a custom/policy caused the violation;
	after use of force, amounting to deliberate indifference.		summary judgment denied to both parties.
Negligent Training/Supervision (MTCA)	Town failed to train/supervise properly and disregarded required	Policies did not require reporting display of firearm; no breach of duty shown.	Sufficient facts for a jury; summary judgment denied.
	reporting, causing harm to Salem.
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress	Police caused Salem's emotional and physical distress through	No breach of duty or causation; injuries unrelated and arose much later.	Genuine fact issue for jury; summary judgment denied.
Intentional Torts (Assault, Battery, etc)	Officers committed intentional torts (assault, battery, false arrest)	Barred by statutory immunity for intentional torts against municipalities.	Claims dismissed under Mass. Tort Claims Act § 10(c).

Key Cases Cited

Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipalities can be liable under § 1983 only for custom or policy causing constitutional violation)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness standard governs excessive force claims)
City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (deliberate indifference standard for municipal failure to train under § 1983)
City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (single incident may support municipal liability if caused by an unconstitutional policy)
Bordanaro v. McLeod, 871 F.2d 1151 (single incident can demonstrate custom where concerted action of multiple employees evidences policy)
Young v. City of Providence ex rel. Napolitano, 404 F.3d 4 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires custom/policy, causation, and deliberate indifference)
United States v. Zapata, 18 F.3d 971 (tests for when police actions constitute a de facto arrest rather than a Terry stop)