LEOBOR Dissent: Sgt. Hanley is a criminal, a liar, and liability to the City of Providence

"In conclusion, I must underscore that Hanley is a man prone to volatility, a man prone to violence, a man prone to vulgarity, a man prone to untruthfulness, and a man accustomed to lying."

A LEOBOR (Law Enforcement Officer’s Bill of Rights) panel has concluded with a 45-day suspension for Sgt Joseph Hanley, a Providence Police Officer who brutally assaulted a handcuffed Rishad Gore. The three-person panel reached this decision on a 2-1 vote. You can read the decision in its entirety here. The majority opinion was authored by Major Todd Patalano of the Cranston Police Department and retired Providence Police Sergeant Robert Boehm. Major Patalano’s other job is Rhode Island State Senator, serving District 26 in Cranston. Commander Timothy O’Hara, from the Providence Police Department, wrote the dissent.

The panel’s shocking conclusion is not surprising to LEOBOR critics. Efforts to repeal the law, which protects out-of-control police officers from suffering the consequences of their crimes, were unsuccessful in the General Assembly, resulting in minor cosmetic reforms. The Sgt Hanley LEOBOR panel was convened before these reforms were instituted a year ago. Still, it is difficult to imagine that these reforms would have resulted in a better outcome for this case.

Here’s the dissent:

As the selectee of the Providence Police Department to the hearing committee, I issue this separate opinion, vigorously dissenting with much of the decision-making rationale of Major Todd Patalano and Sergeant Robert Boehm.¹ Although I have joined to support guilty rulings on three of the 10 charges, I am compelled to express my dissenting views on the disciplinary outcome of this case.²

At the outset, let me state without equivocation that Hanley’s misbehaviors on April 19, 2020, were outrageous. The indispensable quality of any police officer is self-control, and Hanley exhibited none on that fateful April Sunday evening. It is mind-boggling that he launched into such a volatile, unrestrained tirade and a violent criminal assault on a prone and handcuffed Rishod Gore, who was suspected of committing a misdemeanor. Hanley’s explosive reaction, insulting vulgarity, unhinged anger, and criminal physicality with Gore are a downright disgrace, fully inexcusable given Hanley’s supervisory status and seniority. But first, let me turn to the facts I have found from the preponderant evidence adduced by Attorney Vincent Ragosta. These facts comprise the underpinnings for what undoubtedly should result in Hanley’s long-overdue termination. Sadly, the majority does not align with my standards for holding errant police officers accountable for blatant and willful misconduct.

In the early evening of April 19, 2020, department officers were dispatched to 77 Knight Street for a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, the officers went to the second floor, where they met a female complainant and a subject named Markese Davis, whom they took into custody for domestic disorderly conduct. Davis was escorted down to the first floor, then outside to a marked police cruiser. A black male, wearing a black sweatshirt, who was also in the Knight Street location, proceeded down from the second floor and outside with police. Importantly, this black male was not Gore. Davis struggled when officers attempted to place him in the cruiser, and so he was pepper-sprayed to facilitate his placement in the vehicle.  

Thereafter, Gore arrived at the Knight Street locale and could be seen videoing the events on a cell phone. Davis was then transported from the scene, after which Gore walked up Tell Street and entered the passenger side of a parked BMW vehicle. Before doing so, he allegedly held up his cell phone and said words to the effect of, “Watch what’s gonna happen.”

Hanley then arrived on the scene and made a decision to arrest Gore for disorderly conduct. He and Officers Abraham Lugo and Vincent Lopez walked up Tell Street approximately 151 feet in a mere 25 seconds. At this juncture, Gore was simply sitting in the passenger side of the BMW with his girlfriend, Sara Zaroogian, who was seated in the driver’s seat. The doors to the BMW were closed, and none of the body worn camera (BWC) video entered in evidence revealed Gore outside the BMW as Hanley, Lugo, and Lopez approached. Neither Hanley, Lugo, nor Lopez ran to the BMW, nor were any verbal commands given to Gore as they walked to that vehicle (i.e., none were detectable or audible before they arrived at the BMW). When Hanley reached the BMW, he immediately went to the passenger side door. He did not converse with Gore or attempt to communicate with him before flinging the door open and going “hands-on” with Gore. There were no verbal commands given, such as “Sir, step out of the car,” “Sir I need to speak with you,” or, “You’re under arrest for disorderly conduct,” There was no calm or professional communication with Gore -- just brute force and profanity as Hanley violently extracted Gore from the passenger seat, after which Gore was forced onto the pavement, face down, hands behind his back, and handcuffed. From the moment of handcuffing Gore behind his back, Hanley assaulted and battered him in several distinct ways, any one of which, or in combination, violated R.I.G.L. § 11-5-3, as well as department rules, regulations, and policies governing the use of force. More specifically, Hanley kicked the handcuffed-Gore in the side, punched his side, then grinded his knee into Gore’s head and neck area, bouncing up and down, using his hand on the car door for leverage. But Hanley was not done with his brutality. He stepped up, walked back from Gore momentarily, and when Gore asked, “What did I do?” Hanley walked back and kicked Gore’s head, loud enough to be audible on the BWC. And if that were not enough, Hanley struck again, this time stepping on both of Gore’s legs. Throughout these acts of unjustifiable and unreasonable violence, Hanley laced his criminality with profanity and insults, calling Gore “a cunt,” and referring to Gore as “acting like a savage.” All of Hanley’s violent, vitriolic, and vituperative behaviors occurred while arresting Gore for the petty misdemeanor of disorderly conduct. All of it transpired while Gore posed no realistic or imminent threat to Hanley or others. Officer Lugo had Gore securely under control, firmly placing his body weight on the face-down, cuffed-from-behind Gore. Gore was not thrashing or kicking as Lugo held him in place, with other officers nearby surrounding Gore and the scene. Lugo needed no assistance from Hanley to control Gore, nor did he ask for any.

Although Hanley’s purported justifications to mask his criminal use of force, e.g., that Gore was “tensing” after cuffing, and that his blows were appropriate “compliance strikes” or “checking,” all those nonsensical and disingenuous fictions unraveled on December 6, 2024. On that date, Hanley pled to criminal assault, informing Superior Court Justice Melissa Darigan, in no uncertain terms, that he did not “challenge or contest” the facts (of his assault and battery upon Gore) as recited by Assistant Attorney General Michael McCabe. [Department Exhibit 46 at pp. 4 to 6³; Transcript of Hanley’s cross-examination on April 15, 2025, at pp. 199 et seq.] At no point during his plea did Hanley offer to Judge Darigan any of the justifications he used in this proceeding, i.e., that the force applied to Gore were tactically appropriate compliance strikes or checking. 

It must also be emphasized that Hanley was found guilty of assault and battery by District Court Judge Brian Goldman [See Department Exhibit 45]. Although it has been asserted that Judge Goldman’s judgment of guilt was vacated by his appeal to the Superior Court, his decision is a full exhibit in this proceeding, and highly relevant and material to all ten charges, specifically as it relates to Hanley’s reputation for lying and untruthfulness. Quite correctly, after days of trial in the District Court, Judge Goldman found that Lugo had Gore under “complete control” and that “none of the five strikes after [Gore’s] handcuffing were a reasonable or necessary use of force” as Hanley and Attorney Michael Collucci had unpersuasively argued. With unfiltered candor, Judge Goldman characterized Hanley’s testimony of the events of April 19, 2020, as “not credible... directly contradicted by other testimony, and in particular video evidence.”⁴ In short, Judge Goldman wisely discerned that Hanley’s testimony was “an utter fabrication of what actually occurred...” [Department Exhibit 45].

While on the topic of credibility, or more accurately, Hanley’s lack thereof, I must express my deep disappointment with the majority’s ruling on Charge 8, which alleged Hanley’s untruthfulness about his BWC dislodging from his uniform during Gore’s apprehension. Hanley described it as the “...camera flew off.” The majority must be quite gullible to accept this obvious fabrication. Most seasoned police supervisors would construe Hanley’s self-serving utterances (after his quite heated crime of violence) as nothing more than a purposeful lie. This is particularly so since the BWC video of another officer unmistakably depicts Hanley’s BWC fastened to his uniform. And, to bolster the proof of Hanley’s lying about his BWC, the testimony Major Patalano intends to quote in his ruling on Charge 8, has Hanley offering conflicting versions about his BWC, i.e., “...I believed it was malfunctioning or knocked off, the button.” Hanley was scrambling to answer his attorney’s questioning and got caught up in his own lie, offering several different and inconsistent explanations as to why his BWC was not functioning. It is beyond any doubt that Hanley’s BWC did not fly off, nor was it knocked off. Most police officers know that when a witness or suspect gives multiple inconsistent stories, that’s a sure sign of lying. Liars often can’t keep their stories straight. I am surprised that Major Patalano attributes Hanley’s lying to a “non-deliberate miscommunication made during a high-stress operational situation.” No disrespect intended, I find it difficult to believe that the majority would overlook the significant inconsistencies in Hanley’s statements regarding his BWC, as well as Major Patalano’s assessment that Hanley’s untruth was made “under significant operational stress.” It is an overstatement, especially considering that this was a petty misdemeanor arrest that Hanley himself initiated and escalated. For sure, if there was any “operational stress” that evening, it was ignited by Hanley himself. He was not unanticipatedly thrust into a dangerous police operation. Rather, Hanley’s lies about his BWC were a product of his uncontrollable anger that evening, and the realization that his crime was no doubt captured on a BWC3.⁵

I disagree with Major Patalano’s statement that Hanley has “no prior history of untruthfulness or integrity.” That is just not so! Indeed, when Hanley testified in a circa 2005 criminal assault trial against Providence Police Officer David Ramage before District Court Justice Madeline Quirk, she rebuked Hanley, branding him as a liar in the strongest of terms.⁶ Suffice it to say that Hanley has developed quite a reputation for lacking veracity. As Attorney Vincent Ragosta aptly and metaphorically argued in his closing, Hanley not only has a black belt in jiujitsu, but he has a black belt in lying. Hanley is a man who contrives explanations for every aspect of his malfeasance, and that, in my estimation, is a tell-tale sign of a serial liar! Given his proven propensity to bend and stretch the truth, he can never testify effectively in any proceeding, civil or criminal. He will be vulnerable to stinging impeachment on cross-examination; thus, he will be of little to no value working in this department, any other law enforcement agency, or the criminal justice system. 

I now devote some brief mention to Major Patalano’s disregard of the recommendation of Colonel Oscar Perez for Hanley’s termination. Normally, in employment disciplinary cases, arbitrators give great deference to an employer’s judgment as to the appropriate measure of discipline, even if they consider a lesser form of discipline more fitting. The so-called doctrine of deference is grounded on the notion that an employer should not have to bear the heavy burden and risk of retaining an unfit or unworthy employee who has committed a crime or otherwise transgressed boundaries of acceptable workplace conduct. Here, not one, but two Providence Police Chiefs, Colonel Perez and former Colonel Hugh Clements, Jr., called for Hanley’s termination because of his conspicuous and bold assaults on a handcuffed arrestee. Quite perplexing was Major Patalano’s approach to the overwhelming evidence in this case, probing and questioning Colonel Perez about what Major Patalano professed was “missing” in this case, and why Hanley should be terminated, rather than the 45 to 60-day suspensions other Providence chiefs of police had dispensed for misdemeanor offenses committed by other officers fifteen years ago or more. Colonel Perez succinctly summarized his reasoning for termination by straightforwardly responding that what Major Patalano is “missing” is Hanley’s lack of “self-control.” As the Colonel so convincingly said, the prior cases of Providence officers receiving lesser measures of discipline were “not the same” as Hanley’s. Colonel Perez certainly cannot be bound by the lenient decision-making of prior chiefs, especially in this era of modern policing, where public scrutiny of police misconduct is intense, and deservedly so. The Hanley case is like no other in Providence and Colonel Perez made that abundantly clear: “You have a Sergeant with hash marks on his arms with a brand-new officer, with someone [Gore] who’s no longer resistant, you do martial arts,⁷ you know how to handle yourself, that’s what I think [you’re] missing.” [4-25-25 Transcript at Page 79]. When Major Patalano pressed Colonel Perez by asking, “So I’m just trying to figure out how we got to termination,” the Colonel justified his recommendation for Hanley’s termination by stating, “But I’ll tell you, I’m not worried about what Gore said. I’m worried about what I saw,⁸ what the public has seen, and what this nation and other officers in the city have seen.” In a nutshell, Colonel Perez emphasized the vital importance of public trust in policing and Hanley’s erosion of that trust as a veteran officer and supervisor.

As I near the end of this dissent, it should be highlighted, as Attorney Ragosta argued in his closing remarks, that there is much precedent, both in Rhode Island and nationwide, for the termination of police officers who assault handcuffed, restrained, or in-custody arrestees or detainees. Indeed, the hearing committee was asked to take notice of a case in Major Patalano’s department, in which an officer assaulted a diminutive arrestee when being booked in his police station. That officer was charged with simple assault and eventually separated from Major Patalano’s department. And who in Rhode Island can forget the case of the Pawtucket police officer who assaulted an elderly restroom attendant at Foxwoods? He, too, was charged criminally and administratively, then purged from his department, fired by a LEOBOR hearing committee. There was the case of a Lincoln police officer kicking the head of a handcuffed female, who was taken into custody at the casino in that town. Yes, that officer was criminally and administratively charged and exited from Lincoln’s department. The common denominator of these cases is that termination is warranted when officers like Hanley cross the line and go from being cops to criminals. For sure, no two cases are factually identical, but suffice it to say that workplace violence perpetrated by any employee universally results in termination. Although police officers are authorized to use reasonably necessary force in discharging their duties in their work environments, excessive, unreasonable, and criminal violence must never be condoned, as the majority has done with Hanley. 

In conclusion, I must underscore that Hanley is a man prone to volatility, a man prone to violence, a man prone to vulgarity, a man prone to untruthfulness, and a man accustomed to lying. And yes, he is a man who has admitted to being a criminal! There is no place for him in any law enforcement agency. The bottom line: the majority has now burdened the Providence Police Department with an unfit individual, a criminal who will don a uniform again, and who is an inherent liability to our agency and the good people of Providence!

1. I shall refer to them herein as “the majority.”

2. It is very disappointing and odd that the chair of the hearing committee, Major Patalano, has refused to share the full written decision he has authored. By email dated June 23, 2025, at 4:15 PM, he refused my request to read and digest his decision, stating, “I am not distributing my report until we release the entire decision, upon completion.” It is confounding that he is cloaking his written decision in secrecy. While he did share approximately fifteen pages of his decision on the disposition of the ten charges, he has declined to disclose the remainder of his apparently lengthy ruling, which presumably includes his ratio decidendi for his judgment on the disciplinary penalty to be imposed on Hanley. Major Patalano’s lack of transparency and withholding his magnum opus from fellow hearing committee members is troublesome and uncharacteristic of decades of administrative adjudication by many other LEOBOR hearing committees. Routinely, committee chairpersons provide their written decisions to fellow hearing committee members to afford them an opportunity to read them and respond as they see fit, e.g., dissenting, concurring, or doing so in part. Nonetheless, my dissent is crafted with a foundation rooted in the substantial evidence of record, which ought to have culminated with Hanley’s firing from the department. 

3. Attorney General McCabe stated that Hanley did commit a simple assault and battery in violation of Rhode Island General Laws 11 5-3, by using unreasonable and unnecessary force in making an arrest of one Richard Gore, specifically by kicking Mr. Gore in his left side, punching Mr. Gore on his left side, bouncing up and down on Mr. Gore’s head and neck area with his knee, kicking Mr. Gore in the head and walking across Mr. Gore’s legs. All of these actions constituted simple assault and battery and were committed... while Mr. Gore was handcuffed with his hands behind his back and prone. Thereafter, Judge Darigan asked Hanley “[a]nd do you agree that those facts are substantially true?” after which Hanley responded, “I do, your Honor.” Judge Darigan then asked Hanley, “Do you challenge or contest those facts at all, sir?” to which Hanley plainly and unequivocally responded, “No, your Honor.” While the disposition of Hanley’s criminal charges does not constitute a conviction under Rhode Island law, he nonetheless admitted to a crime, which admission is binding as evidence of Hanley’s crime, hence usable by this hearing committee to deem Hanley a criminal. 

4. The BWC video of Hanley’s vicious strikes to the handcuffed Gore went viral and is indelibly etched in the vast worldwide web. One needs only do an internet search with the words “Joseph Hanley Providence - video” to mine a vast array of news stories and video links of Hanley’s crime. One such link contains most of the BWC video of Gore’s apprehension and serves as a vivid example of Attorney Ragosta’s reference to Hanley as an “internet icon of a bad cop.”

5. It bears noting that a concerned private citizen, who lived in an apartment elevated above the scene of Gore’s arrest, and who witnessed it, was so “horrified” by Hanley’s assaults that she video recorded them on her cell phone. She reported Hanley’s horrific behavior to the department and testified in his criminal prosecution. [See generally Department Exhibit 45].

6. Judge Quirk had this to say about Hanley: “And so very, very, very infrequently do I use the word ‘lie’ when I am rendering a decision on passing on the credibility of a witness. I say I can’t believe the testimony. I say I find the testimony not to be credible or reliable, but I very rarely call it a lie. In fact, I do this, you know, all the time, I do this, I take a lot of notes. And whenever I’m taking those notes, I have the set, but I always have a separate sheet of paper to the side; and that’s just so I jot down thoughts that jump into my mind as people are testifying. Kind of judgment calls, if you will. When Officer Hanley testified, I wrote these words: Nice guy, great demeanor, story is vague, doesn’t make sense. Officer Hanley made a wonderful presentation on the witness stand, and I’m very distressed by the fact that I was so impressed by him, because very little of what he said was true. I would say Hanley got on the witness stand and lied.” [Transcript 4-15-25 pp. 190 et seq.].

7. This was Colonel Perez’s reference to Hanley’s jiujitsu proficiency, also touted on the World Wide Web. See for example: https://www.instagram.com/jhanleyselfdefense/?hl=en; https://www.facebook.com/p/J-Hanleys-Self-Defense-100063707792083/

8. This is a reference to the widely publicized BWC video.