Massachusetts POST Commission revokes officer’s certification over ties to Sandra Birchmore

A former Stoughton officer has seen his certification revoked over ties to a high-profile case.

The following ruling was released Wednesday concerning Robert Devine and his ties to Sandra Birchmore who died in February of 2021.

“In January 2024, the Division of Police Standards (“Division”) ordered Robert Devine (“Respondent”) to show cause why the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (“Commission”) should not revoke or otherwise take action against his certification as a law enforcement officer if it finds that he has a pattern of unprofessional police conduct that may escalate and that he has repeated sustained internal affairs complaints, for the same or different offenses. The Respondent answered the Order to Show Cause and requested a hearing to address the allegations contained therein. 

“Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 6E, § 3(a) and 555 CMR 1.10(1), the Chair of the Commission, Hon. Margaret R. Hinkle (Ret.), designated Hon. Kenneth J. Fishman (Ret.) as the Hearing Officer. Between March 2024 and May 2025, ten pre-hearing conferences were held principally to deal with the extensive discovery process relating to this matter. A Protective Order and Supplement were entered in March 2024 and January 2025, respectively, to protect certain material from public disclosure. The hearing, which was held in conformance with M.G.L. c. 30A, §§ 10, 11, and 13; 801 CMR 1.00; and 555 CMR 1.10, took place on June 5, June 6, July 14, and July 15, 2025. At the hearing, four witnesses testified, including the Respondent himself. The Division offered 14 exhibits, 12 of which were admitted; the Respondent submitted 19 exhibits, 8 of which were admitted. Initial Decision, p. 2. 

“The Hearing Officer issued his Initial Decision, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30A, § 11(7) and 11(8); and 555 CMR 1.10(4)(e)2., on October 10, 2025, finding by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent had a pattern of unprofessional police conduct that may escalate and that he had repeated sustained internal affairs complaints, for the same or different offenses. The Hearing Officer also found that the Respondent had been untruthful, particularly when he lied to investigators about communicating with and meeting an individual who was identified as S.B. for a sexual encounter to protect himself and his reputation. The Hearing Officer then recommended that the Commission revoke the Respondent’s certification as a law enforcement officer, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 6E, § 10(b)(iii) and (v), and order the provision of all revocation information to the National Decertification Index (“NDI”), pursuant to M.G.L. c. 6E, § 10(g). 

“The Respondent filed objections to the Initial Decision on November 7, 2025, generally contending that the allegations surrounding his agency’s 2015 investigation did not establish a pattern of unprofessional police conduct that would repeat itself or escalate and that the Initial Decision was “not based on facts from which one could reason, by clear and convincing evidence, that he was communicating with S.B. via social media and met S.B. for a sexual encounter while on duty as a police officer.” He also disputed numerous isolated findings. The Respondent subsequently filed a brief on November 20, 2025, pursuant to the briefing schedule established by the Commission, arguing that his due process rights were violated. He criticized the Hearing Officer for relying on hearsay because he could not cross examine S.B. due to her death, and on evidence that he contended was unreliable and insufficient. 

“The Division filed a response on December 1, 2025, stating, among other things, that the Hearing Officer properly found that the Respondent engaged in a pattern of unprofessional police conduct that may escalate and that he had repeated sustained internal affairs complaints for the same or different offenses. The Division addressed certain text messages with S.B. that were attributed to a “Marty Riggs.” According to the Division, the text messages entered into evidence, taken as a whole, supported a finding that the Respondent authored those messages. The Division observed that the username for the “Marty Riggs” account was “ REDACTED,” that the author of the text messages became a lawyer on the same date that the Respondent was admitted to the bar, and that the author had the same work schedule as Devine. The Division contended that the evidence of sustained allegations reflected more than two events and evinced a pattern of misconduct by the Respondent. 

“In the Initial Decision, the Hearing Officer considered, among other things, numerous exhibits and evidence that pertained to the Respondent’s pattern of unprofessional police misconduct and repeated sustained internal affairs complaints, including two sustained allegations against him in 2015, and three sustained allegations against him in 2022. Initial Decision at pp. 4-8, 28-29. The Hearing Officer found that the evidence established that the Respondent was communicating with S.B. by using the Facebook alias “Marty Riggs,” and that he had contact with her. Id. at p. 26. Based on, among other things, the evidence presented regarding the Respondent’s Facebook Messenger activity and his demeanor during his testimony, the Hearing Officer found that the Respondent lacked credibility in his denials of the relevant allegations against him. Id. at p. 5; see also id. at p. 25. The Hearing Officer’s credibility determinations are given deference. See 555 CMR 1.10(4)(e)2.b. 

“As noted above, four witnesses testified at the hearing. S.B. was deceased, unfortunately, and therefore could not testify. The right to cross-examine a witness is not absolute during administrative proceedings. “[A] showing that the proffered evidence bears substantial indicia of reliability and is substantially trustworthy is a showing of good cause obviating the need for confrontation.” Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 118 (1990). “If the Commonwealth has ‘good cause’ for not using a witness with personal knowledge, and instead offers reliable hearsay or other evidence, then the requirements of due process are satisfied.” Id. at 118-19; see also Costa v. Fall River Hous. Auth., 453 Mass. 614, 625-27 (2009) (applying Durling to administrative hearings). The Respondent received a fair hearing, and the Hearing Officer did not violate his due process rights, as he was afforded the opportunity to make arguments and present evidence in his defense. 

“After careful consideration of the evidence presented in the hearing, the findings of fact and rulings of law in the Initial Decision, and the subsequent filings submitted by the Respondent and the Division, the Commission finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent has a pattern of unprofessional police conduct that may escalate and that he has repeated sustained internal affairs complaints, for the same or different offenses. See M.G.L. c. 6E, § 10(b)(iii), (v). The Commission need not reach a decision on the Hearing Officer’s finding of untruthfulness. The Respondent’s certification is hereby revoked.“