The Fatherhood Coalition

Berkshire chapter forum on police domestic violence policies and procedures October 13, 2001 QUESTIONS FOR MAYORAL CANDIDATES FROM THE BERKSHIRE FATHERHOOD COALITIION (BFC)

The following questions were to be presented to the mayoral candidates at a forum on father’s issues. The event was going to take place at Saturday, October 13, 2001 at 2:00 after a forum including Pittsfield Police Chief Anthony Riello.

Both candidates received these questions in advance and before their decline of our invitation. We wanted to focus on issues that primarily effect men and fathers, and are of great concern to members of our group. Both candidates have planned to attend numerous forums and events, and we did not seek to sponsor a duplicative effort where both candidates were confronted with a broad array of issues, most of which would have been amply covered in the previous and upcoming numerous forums. Most importantly, we wanted to focus on issues directly within the mayor’s control. While most of questions focus on police powers, we also asked questions about education and daycare. Ms. Sara Hathaway had originally agreed to meet before our group. She was given the following questions, and retracted her offer to appear before our group. Ms. Hathaway graciously extended an offer to meet with our group after the campaign, if she is elected. Mr. Ruberto, who gave our invitation serious thought, declined the invitation after being presented a list of questions that were to be asked. Mr. Ruberto has graciously agreed to meet with our group before the election, in private. We thank both candidates for their consideration.

We harbor no ill feelings towards either candidate. The City of Pittsfield is lucky to have two highly qualified candidates. Ms. Hathaway was an aid for State Senator Nuciforo. She went to two prestigious schools, Bryn Mawr College and Michigan State University, where she obtained a Masters in Urban Management. She has expertise in getting grant money, and she has an ideal post-graduate degree. Mr. Ruberto has one of the greatest resumes of anyone ever to run for the Mayor of the City of Pittsfield, in either this century or the last. He is a captain of industry, and has managed corporate divisions with budgets much larger than the City of Pittsfield. He has brought companies from bankruptcy to great strength. Mr. Ruberto ran the plastic films division of Dallas-based Rexene Corporation, which sold for $600 million dollars. He has more post-graduate degrees than can be counted. We are lucky to have both as mayoral candidates and wish they both could win. Whoever wins, we hope to have a healthy dialogue.

1. Do you believe the police department should be an entity unto itself that is unaccountable, or do you believe it is the office of the mayor and city counsel to monitor and supervise the activities of the police department? If so, how do you see yourself conducting the role of guardian of the rights of the citizens of Pittsfield?

BFC VIEWPOINT: The Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition does not believe the Chief of Police is a power unto him/herself, unaccountable to the people through supervision by elected officials. We believe that the Mayor of Pittsfield has considerable power over the police department and the Chief of Police. Under Section 27 of the Pittsfield City Charter, the Mayor has the ability to hire a Police Chief with a majority of the City Council, and that under Section 30 of the City Charter (and Section 18-4 of the Pittsfield Code) the Mayor has the ability to remove the Police Chief with a majority of the City Council. Under Section 18-2 of the City Code, the Chief of Police "shall perform all duties and be subject to all rules and regulations prescribed by law, ordinances, or orders of the Mayor and City Council." Accordingly, the Mayor, with the City Council, has the right and duty to control the Police Department through ordinances and orders. The Chief of Police has the ability to establish rules and regulations under Sec. 18-9 of the Pittsfield Code, which states "The Chief of Police may establish rules and regulations for the government an management of the Police Department consistent with the law, the provisions of this Code and the other ordinances of the city, subject to approval of the Mayor and City Council." Accordingly, the Chief of Police may only establish rules that are compliant with the City of Pittsfield ordinances, and that are subject to the Mayor and City Council’s approval. Clearly, the Mayor and City Council have the right and duty to make sure that the comportment of the Chief of Police is not repugnant to the United States Constitution.

While the Chief of Police may appeal a demotion or termination to the Civil Service Bureau, if the Chief of Police refuses to carry out a lawful order or ordinance of the Mayor and City Council, the termination or demotion will be valid and will not be overturned. We believe the Mayor of the City of Pittsfield should fight for civil rights even if it necessitates going to court, and that the Mayor should make sure all arrests are made with sufficient probable cause. We believe the mayor should not dismiss this as "only a state or judicial concern." We believe in forthrightness and accountability. We believe that if the Mayor is willing to litigate the taking land by eminent domain for a ballpark or a theater, the Mayor should be equally willing to litigate to protect our rights under the United States Constitution. We believe that the Mayor of the City of Pittsfield has a duty to protect and abide by the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This duty includes the duty to make sure that the Pittsfield Police Department adheres to the dictates of the United States Constitution. The Mayor of the City of Pittsfield will take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition thinks that mayor should take this oath seriously.

We believe it is the office of the Mayor to make sure the Police Department arrests people only in a way that is compliant with the United States Constitution, and that such a serious duty shall not be lightly dismissed as belonging to the expertise of the Police Department alone or be subject to only vague directives. We believe the Mayor should be the guardian of our Constitutional rights, including the right to be free from an arrest without probable cause. While it true that one may bring a lawsuit in Federal Court for a deprivation of right afforded under the Bill of Rights, such lawsuits are expensive and take years. It is not only the office of the judiciary to make sure the Constitution is protected, but as with the conduct of employees of the City of Pittsfield, it is also the mayor’s office. Safeguarding of the Bill of Rights is not an issue where one should shift the blame and deny responsibility. Police brutality, racial profiling, gender profiling, gender bias in police policy are all examples of conduct that would violate the United States Constitution. A mayor should not simply say, "Go get a lawyer, this is a matter for the courts." This is a matter for the mayor.

 

2. Do you favor an automatic arrest policy in domestic situations?

BFC VIEWPOINT: We are opposed to mandatory arrest procedures and arrest made without any corroborating evidence other than the word of the accuser. Probable cause requires a reliable informant that is free from suspicions of a motivation to lie. In domestic situations, there are too many reasons for a lack of veracity. Often, relationships end in acrimony or spite, and there is a motive for revenge. Also, an arrest is the first step to obtaining a restraining order in court, and obtaining the property, the house or living dwelling, and most importantly, the children. A testimony by any individual with a high motive to lie is not inherently reliable and is not sufficient to establish probable cause without additional corroborating evidence. The mayor should defend the United States Constitution and make sure that the Bill of Rights is safeguarded for all of Massachusetts’ citizens. We believe that domestic incident arrests should only be made by corroborating evidence other than the word of the accuser, such as other eyewitnesses or physical injury. We also believe that discretion to arrest should be left with the discretion of the arresting police officer when there appears to be corroborating evidence, so that he or she can weigh the strength of the corroborating evidence and the seriousness of the incident.

The Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition believes that it is important to be able to walk freely knowing that our liberty will not be taken for arbitrary and capricious reasons, or upon the mere uncorroborated accusation of an estranged spouse or girlfriend who may have incentives to lie. We believe that an arrest is an important first step for an estranged wife (or husband) to wrongfully deprive her (or his) spouse or boyfriend (or girlfriend) of his property, of his home, and most importantly, access to his children through an act of calculated mendacity. We believe that false allegations are not isolated or rare occurrences worthy of no solicitation on the part to Mayor. If we are to live in a truly free society, our personal liberty cannot lightly be imperiled by the words of the accuser alone.

 

3. If ten citizens came to you and told you that they were arrested based upon a mere allegation from their spouse/girlfriend without any other significant collaborating evidence, what would you do as mayor?

This would not be compliant with the United States Constitution. We believe the mayor should set up an investigative committee. If it appears that such reports have merits, the mayor should demand that arrest only be made in compliance with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The mayor should ask the Police Chief to make sure all arrest in domestic situations are made with corroborating evidence to prevent false allegations and imprisonment of the innocent.

An arrest is a horrible experience. Moreover, when defending a restraining order, one wants to enter through the front door with a suit and tie, not the back door wearing prisoner’s stripes and chains. If the Police Chief refuses to comply, the Mayor should propose mandatory corroborating evidence ordinances to the City Council, and even possibly the removal of the Police Chief. The Mayor and City Council are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the police department. The Mayor should make sure that citizens of Pittsfield enjoy the benefits of the Bill of Rights.

 

4. If it is becomes widely learned that a women can obtain an arrest by making a false allegation without any corroborating evidence, and it if it is also learned that very few women are actually charged for filing a false police report, would it not be a great concern that false allegations out of spite or an effort to obtain the house, property and children will become common place?

BFC Viewpoint: The question answers itself. The motive to lie is too great and the number of false allegations too common for probable cause to exist based on an uncorroborated story. An arrest would not ensue with a mere allegation in non-domestic situations, and the fact that the arrest is in relation to a domestic incident does not alter the commands of the United States Constitution. Already, due to public knowledge about the ease of obtaining a restraining order and an arrest, false allegations in domestic disputes are rife. Clearly, when corroborating evidence exists, an arrest should be made. Such evidence could consists of a reliable eye witness account other than that of the accuser, are corroborating physical evidence, such as physical injuries.

 

5. Do you believe it is your obligation as mayor to make sure the police department’s conduct comply with the dictates of the United States Constitution?

BFC VIEWPOINT: We believe the correct response is a "Yes" without equivocation, and without qualification.

 

6. If so, what do you believe constitutes sufficient probable cause in a domestic situation, and what would you do if you learned that arrests were being made without probable cause?

BFC VIEWPOINT: Probable cause exists when a reasonable person believes a crime probably has committed. Probable cause exists in a domestic arrest when a witness who has a motive to lie, such as an estranged spouse or paramour, has corroborating evidence in the form of physical injuries or other witness who are (1) reliable and (2) have a basis of knowledge to know that a crime was committed. As stated in the case of Lewis v. Kendrick, 944 F.2d 949 (1rst Cir. 1991), which has never been overturned, "To accept a hitherto unknown victim’s uncorroborated account without question [is] a circumstance that weigh[s] against probable cause." When police officers from the City of Pittsfield make an arrest in a domestic situation based upon the word of the accuser without corroborating evidence, they are arresting without probable cause and are subjecting themselves and the City of Pittsfield to a lawsuit. It is a job of the Mayor to make sure that arrest are made with probable cause, as explained in the Lewis case.

7. Clearly it is an obligation of the police department to protect its citizens from acts of violence in the domestic setting. Are there other values that important when police arrive at a domestic scene? If so, what are they?

BFC VIEWPOINT: Yes, there are other values that important when police arrive at a domestic scene. First, the Fourth Amendment of the United States is to be respected and no one should be arrested without probable cause. This means not arresting an individual based upon an accusation without corroborating evidence. Second, there is much too much emphasis on separating a husband from his wife to prevent violence. More emphasis has to be placed on crisis intervention so that couples can reconcile for the sake of their children. Other cities have such programs, and the City of Pittsfield ought to implement one also.

8. Do you believe in community policing? If so, please define community policing and discuss your plans to further it.

BFC VIEWPOINT: Community policing is an alternative to the 911 system wherein the sole role of police is to "put out fires" and handle emergencies. We believe police should cooperate with Social Services to promote marriage. Also, there has been far too much emphasis on sending one spouse, usually the husband, to anger management seminars without similar programs for women. Most importantly, no one working in such seminars attempt to get the couple to work together—there is no marriage counseling. That should be on the "to do" list of change.

 

9. Mayor Doyle signed 14-year old Clayton Giles’ petition for shared parenting. So did Ms. Hathaway. Would you be willing to sign the petition? (Of course, we would provide you with a copy of the petition in advance.)

BFC VIEWPOINT: This is a major issue to the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition. We believe that the Mayor should give moral support for shared parenting. We salute Mayor Doyle’s efforts to promote shared parenting, and likewise salute him for signing Clayton Giles’ petition.

 

10. Do you think it is important for the office of the mayor to be a bully pulpit for issues that are not within his or her direct control but that are of great interest to the citizens of Pittsfield?

BTC VIEWPOINT: Even if an issue is not within the immediate control of the Mayor, we believe he should use his position as vehicle to ask for important new legislation at both the State and Federal level. His attention to a given matter can make all the difference in the world.

 

11. The Violence Against Women Office, a sub-agency of the Department of Justice, often makes grants to individual cities. They offer a grant program entitled "Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders." According to the Department of Justice website, "Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders are designed to encourage . . . local . . . governments . . . to treat domestic violence as a serious violation of criminal law requiring the coordinated involvement of the entire criminal justice system. Grant funds may be used for implementing mandatory or pro-arrest programs and policies." (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo/applicationkits.htm) According to the Department of Justice’s Violence Against Women Office website, cities in Massachusetts which have elected to seek grants for encouraging arrest are the city of Brockton which received $425,000, the town of Danvers which received $119,134, the City of Salem which received $356,841, and the City of Waltham, $215, 472. The City of Pittsfield is undergoing a tremendous financial crisis. This amount of money would be a great help to the City of Pittsfield.
1. As mayor, would you seek federal grants that are predicated on the number of arrest made? (There have been grants to date that are based upon arrests made in the context of child support http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/at-7903.htm.)
2. As mayor, would you seek monies which are by their own terms are "pro-arrest," and encourage arrest, no matter what circumstances may be uncovered and where the police officer is denied discretion?
3. As mayor, would you seek monies designed to encourage mandatory arrest in domestic situations?

BFC VIEWPOINT: We believe that respect for our individual liberties and not arresting the innocent is as much if not more of a concern than protecting individuals from individual harm. We believe that the state should allow ten guilty people to run free if detaining them would be at the cost of incarcerating one innocent person. For these reasons, we also oppose the city accepting federal grants to adopt "pro-arrest" or "mandatory arrest" procedures that trample on the rights of the accused to be free from arrest without probable cause. We believe that to create an incentive to arrest based upon money rather than the facts of a particular case is perverted and imperils our liberty. We do not believe the police department should be "pro-arrest" or "anti-arrest." We believe our police department should only be pro-justice.

For these reason, the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition is strenuously opposed to receiving grant money that tramples on an officer’s discretion to arrest, and which imperils the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. We are opposed to accepting federal grant money that mandates that "pro-arrest" or "mandatory arrest" procedures be adopted. It is self-evident that when we pay our police for arrests, we cannot walk the streets or live in our homes knowing our freedom will not be unjustly compromised. The only proper touchstone for an arrest is the existence of probable cause. A "mandatory" or "pro-arrest" policy is an effrontery to the most cherished rights of mankind. Conversely, when corroborating evidence does exist, an arrest should be made to protect the safety of the public. Chief of Police Riello said October 14 that funds for "pro-arrest policies" should be closely scrutinized before accepted. Chief of Police Reillo found "mandatory arrest" policies unconscionable and was opposed to them. The Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition finds both types of grant money deeply offensive. First, by their very terms they want to unconscionable standards that would deprive the officer of the ability not to arrest—that is an immensely bad idea. Mandatory arrest policies would literally result in a Stalin-like state wherein a simple call to the KGB would cause a person to be imprisoned.

It was an English legal maxim that "Every man’s home is his castle." Lord Camden stated, "By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass." One of the most forceful expressions of the maxim was that of William Pitt, after whom Pittsfield was named. In Parliament in 1763, he stated, ''The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter, the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter—all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.'' James Otis warned against placing "the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer." Today, however, one may be thrown out his home, and deprived of his children, based upon a mere baseless accusation, without any corroboration. Today, the liberty of every man is in the hands of every petty officer. There is no longer any the sanctity of the home. The king is entering the castle based upon a mere, uncorroborated allegation. "Pro-arrest" and "mandatory-arrest policies will only compound this problem.

 

12. As the Violence Against Women Act shows us, the Federal Government continues to demonstrate that it thinks it knows better than state government and certainly local government, and that local governments are like children who need to be lead by the hand under the grown-up tutelage of the federal government. Under the Violence Against Women Act, the federal government is trying to intervene in criminal law, an areas of endeavor that has been unquestionably delegated to the state and local governments under the United States Constitution. The Violence Against Women Act, like many other acts of the Federal Congress, is clearly intended to interfere with a state or a city’s choices regarding police policy, by dangling money in front of governors and mayors with the proviso that it is the federal government’s way or the highway. As mayor, what balance would you make between taking a dip into the federal-strings-attached grab bag, and maintaining local sovereignty? More succinctly, under what conditions do you think the City of Pittsfield should accept strings-attached federal funding, especially in areas historically left to local control?

BFC VIEWPOINT: The City of Pittsfield should accept no grant money that tramples on the Bill of Rights or causes it to be imperiled. The City of Pittsfield should accept no grant money that is of such poor moral construction that would offend the standards of the community. The City of Pittsfield needs grant money, but there should be limits. The United States Constitution and moral decency are the foremost parameters before accepting any federal grant money.

 

13. Would you favor a volunteer citizens’ review board whose goal it would be to monitor domestic arrest?

BFCE VIEWPOINT: We believe that a board should be set up to review domestic incidents, or alternatively, that a member of a father’s rights group be appointed to The Police Advisory Committee established under Article XXXVII of the Pittsfield City Charter.

 

14. Do you think is proper to have feminist groups providing training to police officers regarding proper arrest procedures in domestic situations?

BFC VIEWPOINT: Turning over training of police to people with a political agendum is completely improper. Only experienced police personnel or attorneys should train police officers. Exceptions should be made with the utmost exception, and only when expertise has been widely established, such as some years on a police force or extensive legal training. Under no circumstance should the training of police officers be turned over to those who have ulterior political motives and who are indifferent to the dictates of the Fourth Amendment.

 

15. If it became evident to you that there was gender bias in police procedures, and that it was far more difficult for a man to obtain an arrest than a women acting under similar circumstances, what action as mayor would you take?

BFC VIEWPOINT: Gender bias in police procedures would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Again, as with arrest made without probable cause, the mayor should immediately set up an investigative committee to see if there is merit to the allegations. All relevant parties should be invited to attend, and attendance should be compelled as relating to employees of the City of Pittsfield. There should be a full-scale investigation. If it turns out that the complaint has merit, the Police Chief should be advised to change policy. If he refuses, the Mayor along with the City Council should pass ordinances to correct the behavior, and also, if necessary, terminate or demote the Police Chief. The Mayor should do everything in his power to make sure all citizens of Pittsfield enjoy equal protection of the law and should not tolerate gender bias in police procedures. If it appears that men and women are being treated differently when confronted with similar circumstances, the gender bias should be eradicated. There are many studies to indicate that women are as violent as men; these are indicated in a lengthy endnote. Yet in the City of Pittsfield, according to the Elizabeth Friedman Center, 367 men were charged with domestic violence and only 7 women. Many men are afraid to come forward because they feel humiliated that they were beaten-up by a women. There is no role for gender bias in a police department.

 

16. The Department of Justice’s Violence Against Women’s Office provides select chapters from the "2000 National Victims Academy," where domestic violence has been defined as "Physical and social isolation; Extreme jealousy and possessiveness; Intimidation, degradation, and humiliation; Name calling and constant criticizing, insulting, and belittling the victim; Blaming the victim for everything; Ignoring, dismissing, or ridiculing the victim's needs; Lying, breaking promises, and destroying the victim's trust." (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/assist/nvaa2000/academy/I-9-DV.htm) Are these, in your opinion, "acts of domestic violence" as claimed by the federal government through the federal Violence Against Women’s Office of the Department of Justice? If so, what role do you see the police and other services of Pittsfield?

BTW VIEWPOINT: Perhaps one of the most disturbing things to develop through extreme feminism is to define domestic violence as something other than actual physical violence or the threat of actual physical violence. When the Department of Justice states that "extreme jealousy" is an act of violence, they not only belittle the problem, but they encourage false police reports. When women read websites such as this, or are told from social workers or batterer shelters that this constitutes violence, they actually call the police to "stop the abuse." Police departments do very little to discourage such calls. One should not call 911 or contact the police because of "Degradation, and humiliation; Name calling and constant criticizing, Insulting; and belittling the victim; Blaming the victim for everything; Ignoring, dismissing, or ridiculing the victim's needs; Lying, breaking promises, and destroying the victim's trust." These are issue brought properly before a probate court in a divorce proceeding when and if they are relevant. Perhaps the greatest disservice of feminism is to encourage women to call the police in such non-violent situations. A women should only call the police when her she has been seriously hurt or she has been threatened with serious physical injury.

 

17. The Department of Justice’s website states, "Domestic violence is primarily perpetrated by men against women," yet defines domestic violence down to such activities as "ignoring," "name calling," "breaking promises," and "jealousy." Given the definition of domestic violence that has been provided by the federal government after years of lobbying by feminist groups, are they correct? Are men more guilty of offenses such as "ignoring," "name calling," "breaking promises," and "jealousy" than women?

BTW VIEWPOINT: Clearly not. Unfortunately, many men are arrested for no more than being in an argument. Such arrests are immoral, tyrannical, and offend the United States Constitution.

 

18. Do you see any role for the city of Pittsfield in providing marriage-counseling services to those that cannot afford it? Do you believe in crisis intervention in domestic incidents? If so, how would you define it and how would you implement it?

BTW VIEWPOINTS: There is too much of an emphasis on arrests and separations. As Judith Wallerstein, Julia Lewis and Sandra Blakeslee teach in "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce," most children are better off in a bad marriage then a good divorce." This pro-separation, anti-marriage counseling viewpoint is offensive to the Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish heritage of the Pittsfield Community. Crisis intervention involves sending a social worker to immediately address the problem. After immediate intervention, both parties, not the just the "bad" party, should participate in marriage counseling. Too often a man is sent off to a batters program and the underlying root of the problem is never addressed. Often, it is not the man that has the temper problem or has shown an unwillingness to be reasonable or cooperate. Women do not have a monopoly in marital virtue, and the current system needs to be corrected to change this fact. Both partners have to try, and a model where the woman is the victim and the man is the perpetrator is not going to allow the marriage to last. Obviously, if the man (or women) is extremely violent, marital counseling is not a solution. All too often, however, arrests are made for simple verbal exchanges.

We believe that government should try to facilitate marriage and promote reconciliation, that divorce is harmful to children, that in most cases a bad marriage is better for children than a divorce, and that it is wrong to solely focus on separating a husband from the wife to prevent physical harm, no matter how remote the likelihood of serious physical harm. For these reasons, we believe in community policing and crisis intervention. We believe the City of Pittsfield should try to foster strong families.

19. What role do you see the City of Pittsfield playing in providing pre-kindergarten services to children, such as daycare or head start?

BFC VIEWPOINT: We do not have a viewpoint on this issue other than that the mayoral candidates should address this question and not leave it unanswered.

 

20. At what age do you think education of children should begin? What should be the nature and form of that education?

BFC VIEWPOINT: We do not have a viewpoint on this issue other than the mayoral candidates should address this question and not leave it unanswered.

 

21. Many fathers who do not have primary physical custody but who have legal custody have complained that they do not have adequate access to school records and are not invited to parent/teacher conferences concerning their children. Do you feel that non-custodial parents should have equal access to school records and teacher conferences as custodial parents? If so, and as an automatic member of the school committee if you are elected as mayor, what would you plan to do about it?
    

BFC VIEWPOINT: We believe that both parents are important, and that if a parent has legal custody of the child, even if he or she is non-custodial parent, that parent should have the right to meet with the child’s parents, attend parent/child conferences, and should have access to academic records. Too often, the non-custodial parent is treated like a non-parent. Not only does the school have a moral obligation to provide a non-custodial parent information about the child, but also if the parent has legal custody, it is unlawful for them to do so. All too often, however, the law is ignored and the non-custodial parent, almost always the father, is left in the dark. It is the job of the Mayor of the City of Pittsfield to assure that both parents are included with regard to access to school records and teacher conferences.

 POSTCRIPT: The Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition deplores domestic violence. We believe that when an accusation is made and there is sufficient corroborating evidence of such a nature to indicate that a serious crime probably has occurred, that an arrest should be made. We believe that when a District Attorney has been presented with sufficient evidence to believe the Commonwealth is likely to prevail at a criminal trial, the District Attorney should protect the public from serious acts of domestic violence and should vigorously prosecute. We also believe in the Bill of Rights. We believe that our forefathers were right when they said an arrest should only be made when there is probable cause, and when the First Circuit said that a reasonable jury could find a lack of probable cause when an arrest is made without corroborating evidence. Lewis v. Kendrick, 944 F.2d 949, 952 (1rst Cir. 1991), (holding "a jury could find that that to accept a hitherto unknown alleged victim’s uncorroborated account without question . . . was a circumstance that weighed against probable cause.")