Boston’s police oversight office issues first subpoenas to officers amid ongoing cooperation and authority dispute

First use of subpoena power

Boston’s Office of Police Accountability and Transparency (OPAT) has issued subpoenas to a group of Boston Police Department officers, marking the first time the city’s civilian oversight structure has used its subpoena authority since it was created. The subpoenas require officers to appear in connection with matters scheduled for review at a Thursday meeting of OPAT’s Civilian Review Board.

OPAT leadership has said the subpoenas were prompted by what the agency describes as persistent difficulty obtaining cooperation from police employees during oversight reviews. OPAT has not publicly identified the subpoenaed officers. The agency has said nine officers have been served.

What OPAT is and how subpoena power fits into its mandate

OPAT was established after the city moved to create a centralized police accountability framework that includes an OPAT Commission, a Civilian Review Board, and an Internal Affairs Oversight Panel. The framework was designed to provide a public-facing entry point for complaints and to strengthen civilian review of police conduct, including by granting subpoena power to the OPAT Commission.

That subpoena authority is intended to compel witness appearances and obtain materials needed for oversight functions. Until now, it had not been used, even as OPAT leaders raised concerns about delays, staffing challenges, and limited participation by department personnel.

Thursday’s meeting: executive session with limited public access

The officers were subpoenaed to appear for cases slated to be taken up by the Civilian Review Board. Testimony and case discussion are expected to occur in executive session, a closed portion of the meeting typically used for sensitive personnel and investigative matters. OPAT has stated that officers may have the option to request that a hearing be held in public.

Potential legal steps if officers do not appear

If subpoenaed officers do not comply, OPAT can seek enforcement through the court system by requesting a judge compel attendance. How such a dispute would unfold is not fully tested in Boston, in part because both OPAT and the police department are city entities operating within intersecting legal and labor frameworks.

Union positions and the broader dispute over participation

The subpoenas land amid an unresolved dispute over whether officers are required to participate in OPAT reviews beyond existing internal affairs processes. Police union leadership has publicly maintained that participation in OPAT proceedings is an individual choice for members. Separate labor organizations representing supervisors and civilian employees have also previously communicated positions opposing participation in OPAT proceedings.

At the center of the conflict is how OPAT’s findings and recommendations interact with disciplinary authority inside the police department. Police leadership has indicated that discipline must follow internal investigative procedures and be consistent with state law, collective bargaining agreements, and departmental rules. OPAT leaders have argued that the oversight system cannot function as designed without timely access to witnesses and information.

• Nine officers have been served with subpoenas to appear in connection with matters before the Civilian Review Board.
• Testimony is expected to be taken in executive session, limiting public visibility into the proceedings.
• Noncompliance could trigger a court enforcement effort, a path not previously tested by OPAT.

The coming days are expected to clarify whether subpoenas will produce officer participation and how the city’s civilian oversight authority will operate in practice when contested.