The Town of Medfield placed Police Chief Michelle Guerette on paid administrative leave on September 23, 2026, pending an outside investigation into “alleged violations of Police Department policies.” The town has said nothing about what the alleged violations are, and says it will not.
That silence is normal at this stage. What is less well known is how much of this process is now written into state law, what the town must send to the state’s police certification commission, and what the public is eventually entitled to see.
What the town announced
The town’s press release, dated September 23, is short. It says Guerette is on paid administrative leave “pending the outcome of an administrative investigation into alleged violations of Police Department policies.” It says the town “has engaged an outside investigator to perform the investigation and reserves the right to take action it determines appropriate based on the findings.”
It adds that the town “will continue to act in compliance with all Peace Officer Standards and Training (‘POST’) Commission requirements in connection with this matter,” that it “does not comment on personnel issues,” and that the department will run under its existing command structure with no disruption to police services.
NBC Boston reported that Guerette has been Medfield’s chief since 2019 and was previously a captain with the Providence, Rhode Island police department. No criminal charge has been reported, and the town’s statement describes a policy investigation, not a criminal one. The allegations are unproven, and Guerette has not commented publicly.
Paid administrative leave is not discipline
Paid administrative leave is a holding pattern. The employee keeps her pay while the employer investigates, and she is kept away from the job so the investigation is not affected. It is not a finding, and it is not a penalty.
That is also why the town is using an outside investigator. In an ordinary internal affairs matter, the chief oversees the investigation of an officer. When the subject is the chief, nobody inside the department is independent of her. Towns in that position typically hire a lawyer or investigator from outside, who interviews witnesses, reviews records and delivers a report to the appointing authority.
What state law requires the town to send to POST
The 2020 police reform law created the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission and wrote reporting duties into Chapter 6E of the General Laws. Section 8 is the part that applies here. The statute speaks of “the head of an agency.” When the chief is the one being investigated, the town’s appointing authority is plainly the party making the reports. The town’s statement that it will comply with POST requirements is a reference to these duties.
- Complaints within two business days. Under G.L. c. 6E, § 8(b)(1), an agency “shall transmit any complaint received by said agency within 2 business days” to POST’s Division of Police Standards. The report must include the officer’s name and certification number, the date and location of the incident, a description of the conduct, and whether the complaint alleges bias, unprofessional conduct, excessive force, or serious bodily injury or death.
- The investigation report. When the internal investigation ends, § 8(b)(2) requires the agency to “immediately transmit” a report describing the investigation, its disposition, and any recommended discipline. If the recommendation includes retraining, suspension or termination, the agency must also recommend what POST should do with the officer’s certification.
- The final report. On final disposition, § 8(b)(3) requires another report setting out the discipline actually imposed and the process used to reach it.
- If she resigns. Section 8(b)(4) closes a door that used to be open. If an officer “resigns during an agency investigation, prior to the conclusion of an agency investigation or prior to the imposition of agency discipline,” the agency must immediately send POST her full employment history, a description of the events surrounding the resignation, and a recommendation on her certification. Resigning no longer ends the record.
What POST can do on its own
POST is not bound by the town’s conclusion. Under § 8(c)(1), its Division of Police Standards must open a preliminary inquiry when it receives credible evidence that an officer committed a crime or engaged in certain listed misconduct, or when the agency itself recommends action against the officer’s certification. Under § 8(c)(2), it may open one on other credible evidence of prohibited conduct.
Preliminary inquiries are confidential by statute. Under § 8(c)(3), POST must notify the officer, her union and her agency within 30 days that an inquiry exists. The commission can also audit an agency’s complaint and investigation records “at any time and for any reason” under § 8(d).
Recent Massachusetts examples of that include the Burlington lieutenant whose certification POST suspended after domestic assault charges, and the Methuen chief whose case ended in a guilty plea. Nothing public suggests Medfield’s matter is of that kind. We simply do not know what it is.
What the public gets to see
There are two separate channels.
POST’s public database. Chapter 6E, § 4(j) directs POST to “maintain a publicly available and searchable database containing records for law enforcement officers.” Because preliminary inquiries are confidential under § 8(c)(2), an open investigation is not something the public should expect to find there.
The public records law. Towns often decline to release anything about a personnel matter by citing the exemption for “personnel [file] or information” in G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). For police investigations, that exemption is narrower than towns tend to claim. In Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (2003), the Appeals Court held that “materials in an internal affairs investigation are different in kind from the ordinary evaluations, performance assessments and disciplinary determinations” that the personnel exemption protects. The newspaper there obtained most of the internal affairs file. The one document the court held back was the chief’s memo telling the officer the disciplinary outcome.
Whether that reasoning reaches an outside investigator’s report on a chief depends on what the report is and how it is used, and other exemptions, such as the privacy exemption, can apply to particular details. But a town cannot simply label an investigation file “personnel” and close it.
What to watch for
- The investigator’s report and whatever the town does with it: reinstatement, discipline, a negotiated separation, or termination.
- A resignation or retirement before the report is done. Under § 8(b)(4), that would trigger a mandatory report to POST, not end the matter.
- Any POST action on her certification, which the town’s reports could prompt.
- A public records request for the report once the investigation is closed.
Frequently asked questions
Why was the Medfield police chief placed on leave?
The town says only that Chief Michelle Guerette is on paid administrative leave pending an outside investigation into alleged violations of police department policies. It has not described the allegations and says it does not comment on personnel matters. No criminal charge has been reported.
Is paid administrative leave a punishment?
No. It keeps the employee on the payroll and away from the job while the employer investigates. It is not a finding of wrongdoing.
Does the town have to tell the POST Commission?
Under G.L. c. 6E, § 8, an agency must send POST any complaint against an officer within two business days, a report when its internal investigation ends, and a final report on the discipline imposed. The town has said it will comply with POST requirements.
What happens if the chief resigns before the investigation finishes?
Under G.L. c. 6E, § 8(b)(4), the agency must immediately report the resignation to POST with her employment history, a description of the events surrounding it, and a recommendation on her certification. Resigning does not erase the matter.
Can the public get the investigation report?
Possibly, once it is complete. The Appeals Court held in Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester (2003) that police internal affairs materials are not automatically exempt as personnel records, although final disciplinary decisions can be withheld and other exemptions may cover specific details.
Sources: Town of Medfield press release, September 23, 2026 (read from the town’s document center); NBC Boston and WHDH, September 23, 2026. Statutory text of G.L. c. 6E, §§ 4(j) and 8 read at malegislature.gov. Citation verified and opinion read: Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (2003). The nature of the alleged policy violations has not been disclosed, and we have not seen any complaint or report. Chief Guerette is not charged with any crime, and the allegations are unproven. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.