WPCY: ΅S0ddU>(0 ސ΅B 3才{#`՛Кn_;spvG#_4-X~MsAꇱl$l AųPo.ӤжMP a{xeɉʱEkpЊ/\ 2!nY;tnckI9ql M{}2 P Ox{1#FꀕCЌ1倳? kϿ ڗu!ΑnX="W{_}j?:~V?kJSʁΓ@>P%HjY˲FzkyvU3ӕ(Ud̾{bnb#\ % 0D# 0(g U: 0 UNq nT N U F U >[ ^ w 4   E f a m  b N 0U 0# 0  0 0 0 0 0l 0C 0C 0Z 01 0 0 0 Bo 0 0T 0 0@ 0 0 0 0 0W 0 0 0! 00c" 0<" 0" 0># 0v# 0`A$ 0`$ 0`% 0`a% 0`% 08!& 0Y& 02+' 0]' 0:Y( 0Y( 0_( 0 K) 0jU* 0+ B*C- D/m- D+- 0- D/K/ 0z/ 06H0 0~0 0:1 0^1 0<2 0NZ2U62U>2U*3U0F3 v3v35577777NW:HP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(F:2$ !   XTXXX      0  vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@Q 9Z+.Courier New Regular<\( 9Z+&Courier Regular˒.s Y.ry File3|xTABLE AU $ XYXXX      *    _OftheNinthCircuit,sittingbydesignation.- - *+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d*8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7I(X7  ?V%2A`Arial?  SU\  `&Times New RomanS7J(X7&  d dH)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7L(X7  ?V%2A`Arial?  SU\  `&Times New RomanS7J(X7H)2dxd0KS.SampleKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial;S9Z+Courier   $ XYXXX      1    _TheCityofBostonwassubstitutedfortheDepartmentbecause  theDepartmentisnotasuableentity.Thecitycouldunder  certaincircumstancesbeliableforaviolationofDwan'srightsby \ EvansandDowd.Monellv.Dep'tofSocialServs.,436U.S.658, 2 694(1978). XYXX XY  $ XYXXX      2    _Lefkowitzv.Cunningham,431U.S.801(1977);Uniformed  SanitationMenAss'n,Inc.v.Comm'rofSanitation,392U.S.280  (1968);Gardnerv.Broderick,392U.S.273(1968);Garrityv.New \ Jersey,385U.S.493(1967). XYXX XY  $ XYXXX      3    _See,e.g.,Singerv.Maine,49F.3d837,847(1stCir.1995);  UnitedStatesv.Indorato,628F.2d711(1stCir.),cert.denied,  449U.S.1016(1980);Chanv.Wodnicki,123F.3d1005,100910(7th \ Cir.1997),cert.denied,522U.S.1117(1998);Benjaminv.Cityof 2 Montgomery,785F.2d959,96162(11thCir.),cert.denied,479 X U.S.984(1986). XYXX XY !  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !X}XXXXX}     UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsd  FortheFirstCircuit  d XYX   A') ` dE<` A    XYXX XY XYXX XYNo.021493   e  @@YYROBERTA.DWAN;CATHERINEM.DWAN;ALLYSONM.DWAN, K  @@BYHERPARENTSANDNATURALGUARDIANS,ROBERTA.DWAN ! q @@ANDCATHERINEM.DWAN;BRITTANYC.M.DWAN,BYHERPARENTS  G  @@ ANDNATURALGUARDIANS,ROBERTA.DWANANDCATHERINEM.DWAN;    @@iiMADYSONE.DWAN,BYHERPARENTSANDNATURALGUARDIANS,   @@ ROBERTA.DWANANDCATHERINEM.DWAN;ROBERTA.DWAN,JR.,BYHIS y  PARENTSANDNATURALGUARDIANS,ROBERTA.DWANANDCATHERINEM. O  DWAN;CHRISTOPHERJ.DWAN,BYHISPARENTSAND %u  NATURALGUARDIANS,ROBERTA.DWANANDCATHERINEM.DWAN, K  @Plaintiffs,Appellees,  @)v. S @#CITYOFBOSTON, O @*@%Defendant.  @%__________  @yy PAULF.EVANS,INDIVIDUALLYANDASTHEPOLICECOMMISSIONER -} @== FORTHEBOSTONPOLICEDEPARTMENT;THOMASDOWD,INDIVIDUALLY S @== ANDASANEMPLOYEEOFTHECITYOFBOSTONPOLICEDEPARTMENT, ) @Defendants,Appellants.  A') ` dEa0 ` A 1   @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT !f" @U U FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS "$ @ [Hon.WilliamG.Young,U.S.DistrictJudge] n$& A') ` dEa&` A &j!( @'Before &O"* @%% Boudin,ChiefJudge, '%#+ @! ! Farris, #  *      ׀SeniorCircuitJudge, (#, @E E andTorruella,CircuitJudge. )$- A') ` dEa,+` A -+}&/      <+&0?   StevenP.PerlmutterwithwhomMichaelD.Lurie,ElizabethC.  SackettandRobinson&ColeLLPwereonbriefforappellants.    StephenJ.DelamerewithwhomBruceA.BierhansandLawOffices \ ofBruceA.Bierhans,LLCwereonbriefforappellees. 2 *'ddd Xdd Xdd Xs#s#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  ..   SIB  p@37767p@SMay27,2003  h  RHC > " p@37767 p@ R(B    (  * !  # XYXX XYG#  v  WXXX XY8 Y XXdXXd8  *,X` XX* ` # XYXXWX# XYXX XY BOUDIN,ChiefJudge. RobertDwansuedtheCityofBoston  andtwosuperiorofficersintheBostonPoliceDepartment x ("Department"),claimingthatthedefendantsviolatedhisFifth $t Amendmentrightsbyputtinghimonpaidadministrativeleaveafter   herefusedtotestifybeforeagrandjuryconcerningthevicious |  beatingofanotherpoliceofficer.Thedistrictcourtrejectedthe ( x  officers'claimofqualifiedimmunity,andtheofficershave $  appealed.WeconcludethatDwan'ssuperiorsdohavequalified   immunity. ,|   ` Thiscaseisanoffshootofthe1995assaultofBoston ( policeofficerMichaelCox,describedindetailinUnitedStatesv.  Conley,249F.3d38,4043(1stCir.2001),andUnitedStatesv. 0 Conley,186F.3d7,1115(1stCir.1999),cert.denied529U.S. , 1017(2000).AstotheeventsinvolvingDwan,werecountthefacts  inthelightmostfavorabletoDwanasthepartyopposingsummary 4 judgment.N.Am.SpecialtyIns.Co.v.Lapalme,258F.3d35,36 0 (1stCir.2001).    ` RobertDwanjoinedtheBostonPoliceDepartmentin1989 8!" asanofficer;hehasbeenasergeantsince1997.Ontheevening "4$ ofJanuary25,1995,DwanwasonpatrolwithhispartnerKenneth $& Conley.Abroadcastoverthepoliceradioreportedarobberyata <&!( Bostonnightcluband,mistakenly,thatapoliceofficerhadbeen '8#* shot.Severalpolicecarspursuedthesuspects.Thechaseended )$, ataculdesacwherethesuspectsranfromtheircarandwere @+&. chasedonfoot.OneofthefirstofficersonthescenewasMichael  Cox,anAfricanAmericanundercoverofficerdressedinplainclothes. \ DwanandConleyarrivedinthefifthcaronthescene.Coxpursued X oneofthesuspectstoafenceatoneendoftheculdesac.The   suspectclimbedoverthefence,butasCoxstartedtoclimbafter `  him,hewaspulleddownbyunidentifiedpoliceofficersandbeaten  \  severely.    ` TheDepartmentimmediatelylaunchedaninvestigationinto d  theCoxbeating.Dwaninitiallycooperated,filingareportin `  March1995,describinghisactionsonthenightinquestionand   claimingthathedidnotseewhichofficersassaultedMichaelCox h becausehe(Dwan)wasattheotherendoftheculdesacassisting d inthearrestofanothersuspect.OfficerJosephHorton  corroboratedDwan'sstory,statingthathe(Horton)assistedinthe l arrestandsawDwanassistingaswell.AnInternalAffairsofficer h expressedhimselfsatisfied.   ` Nevertheless,theDepartmentcontinuedtoquestionDwan. p  ThiswaspartlybecausenoofficereveradmittedtobeatingCoxor !l" seeinganyoneelsedoso,butalsobecauseDwan'sversionofevents "$ wasatoddswithotherevidence.Asecurityguardwhowasin t$& MichaelCox'scarstatedthathewaspresentwhenthesecondsuspect  &p!( wasarrestedandthatnoonefittingDwan'sdescriptionassistedin '#*  thearrest.Inaddition,OfficerRichardWalkertestifiedthathe x)$, sawtwoofficersmatchingConleyandDwan'sdescriptionsnotfar  fromwhereCoxwasbeaten. \   ` InMay1997,Dwanwascalledbeforeafederalgrandjury X investigatingtheCoxbeatingasapotentialcivilrightsviolation.   Dwanwasnotgivenimmunityinthisproceedingandrefusedto `  testify,invokinghisFifthAmendmentrightagainstself  \  incrimination.Hewasagainsubpoenaedtotestifybeforethegrand   juryinOctober1998.HisattorneytoldtheprosecutorthatDwan d  wouldagaininvoketheFifthAmendmentifhewasnotgivenimmunity, `  andtheprosecutorwithdrewthesubpoena.    ` Eightdayslater,onOctober28,1998,Dwanwasplacedon h administrativeleavewithpay.PoliceCommissionerPaulEvanssaid d inaletterthatthedecisionhadbeenmadefor"theefficiencyof  theDepartment"andshouldnotbeconsidereddisciplinaryaction. l InJanuary1999,theDepartmentchargedDwanwithviolating h regulationsinnumerousrespects(e.g.,filingafalsereport)in  regardtotheCoxbeating.TheDepartmentscheduledfourhearings p  overthenextyearregardingthesecharges,butcancelledallof !l" them,andthecomplaintwasultimatelyabandoned. "$  ` Dwanremainedonadministrativeleaveforeighteenmonths t$& (October1998March2000).Whileonleave,hewaspaidhisregular  &p!( salarybutcouldnotworkovertimeorspecialassignments;Dwan '#* claimsthattheforgoneincometotaledbetween50and100percent x)$, ofhisbasesalary.HewasreinstatedinMarch2000afterpassing $+t&. thesecondoftwopolygraphexaminationsindicatingthathedidnot  participateintheCoxbeatinganddidnotseewhodidparticipate. \ Sincehisreinstatement,DwanallegesthattheDepartmenthasdenied X hisrequeststoworkspecialassignmentsandtobetransferredto   anotherdistrict. `   ` OnMarch12,2001,Dwanbroughtsuitfordamagesin  \  federalcourtagainsttheDepartment,PoliceCommissionerEvans,and   DeputySuperintendentThomasDowd(whooversawtheCox d  investigation).X #  1      ׀Inpertinentpart,Dwan'scomplaintallegedthat `  thedefendantsviolated42U.S.C.1985(2000),hisFirst,Fifth,   andFourteenthAmendmentrights,whicharesubjecttoredressunder h 42U.S.C.1983(2000),andtheMassachusettsCivilRightsAct, d Mass.Gen.Lawsch.12,11I(2000).Hiswifeandchildrenalso  suedthedefendantsforlossofconsortium.Mass.Gen.Lawsch. l 258,2(2000). h  ` Thedefendantsmovedforsummaryjudgment,whichthe  districtcourtgrantedonallcountsexceptDwan'sFifthAmendment p  claimandtheclaimundertheMassachusettsCivilRightsAct,which !l" dependsontheFifthAmendmentclaim.Astothisclaim,the "$ districtcourtheldthattakingallfactualinferencesinfavorof t$& Dwan,"areasonablejurycouldconcludethathisrightagainstself  &p!( incriminationwaswrongfullyburdenedbythedefendants'actions"  whichcouldconstitute"aschemeofharassmentdesignedtochillhis \ FifthAmendmentrightsandtocoerce_ Dwan_ Ԁintoincriminating X himself."Thecourtalsoheldthat_ Dwan_ 'sFifthAmendmentrights   were"clearlyestablished"soqualifiedimmunitywasunavailable. `   ` Theindividualdefendantshaveappealedfromtheorder  \  denyingqualifiedimmunity.Aninterlocutoryappealliesfromsuch   adenial,Mitchellv.Forsyth,472U.S.511,530(1985),atleast d  "totheextentthatthequalifiedimmunitydefenseturnsupona `  'purelylegal'question."Fletcherv.TownofClinton,196F.3d41,   45(1stCir.1999).Insuchaninstance,ourreviewis,ofcourse, h denovo._ Suboh_ v.Dist.Attorney'sOffice,298F.3d81,90(1st d Cir.2002).Ifqualifiedimmunityisdeniedbecausethedistrict  courtfindsadisputedissueoffactreservedfortrial, l interlocutoryreviewastothatrulingisnotavailable.Diazv. h Martinez,112F.3d1,3(1stCir.1997).   ` Underwellestablishedlaw,theindividualdefendantsare p  entitledtoqualifiedimmunityforofficialactionunless(1)their !l" conductviolated_ Dwan_ 'sconstitutionalrightsand,inaddition,(2) "$ thelawtothiseffectwas"clearlyestablished"underthenexisting t$& lawsothatareasonablepoliceofficerwouldhaveknownthathis  &p!( behaviorwasunlawful.Saucierv.Katz,533U.S.194,201(2001). '#* Sauciercontemplates,althoughwithpossibleexceptionsnot x)$, pertinenthere,see_ Dirrane_ v.BrooklinePolice_ Dep't_ ,315F.3d65, $+t&. 6970(1stCir.2002),thatthereviewingcourtshouldbeginwith  theformerquestion. \  ` Theinquiryissimplified,butonlypartly,bythe X defendants'concession(forpurposesofthisappeal)that_ Dwan_ Ԁwas   placedonadministrativeleave"because"hepleadedorthreatened `  topleadtheFifthAmendmentbeforethefederalgrandjury.This  \  concessionconfirmswhatwouldotherwisehavebeenaplausiblebut   notinevitableinferencefromthetimingofevents:thatthe d  administrativeleavedecisionwaspromptedatleastinpartby `  _ Dwan_ 'sactionintakingtheFifthAmendmentandnotsolelybyan   unrelateddeterminationthatheshouldbeinvestigatedinternally h formisconduct. d  ` Inasetofdecisionsinthelate1960sandinthe1970s,  theSupremeCourtheldthatpublicemployeescouldnotbecoerced l intowaivingtheirFifthAmendmentrights.Z #  2      ׀Mostofthecases h involvedpublicemployeeswhowerefiredorotherwisepenalizedfor  pleadingtheFifthAmendmentafterbeingadvisedthatthisaction p  wouldautomaticallyresultinsuchpenalty.AlthoughtheSupreme !l" Courthasnotrecentlyrevisitedthe_ Garrity_ lineofcases,anumber "$  ofthecircuitsincludingthisonehavefocusedonthe"coercion" t$& issueemphasizedbytheCourtinthosecases,makingitaclaim  dependentonsuchashowing.\ #  3       \   ` Further,thiscircuithasheldthatcoercionislacking X solongastheemployeewasneverthreatenedorforewarnedofany   sanctionforrefusingtotestify,eventhoughtheemployeesuffers `  adverseactionafterthefactasaresultofrefusingtocooperate.  \  SeeSinger,49F.3dat847(1stCir.1995);_ Indorato_ ,628F.2dat   71516.Here,noonetold_ Dwan_ ԀthatifhepledtheFifthAmendment d  beforethegrandjury,hewouldbeplacedonadministrativeleave. `  Nordoesheallegeanyregulationorsettledpracticetothat   effect.UnitedStatesv._ Friedrick_ ,842F.2d382,395(D.C.Cir. h 1988). d  ` Therearedictaalthoughperhapsnoholdingsinafew  circuitsthatassumethatofficialretaliationagainstsomeonefor l pleadingtheFifthAmendmentcouldbeaviolationevenwithout h coerciontocompelawaiver.See_ Nat'l_ ԀTreasuryEmployeesUnionv.  U.S._ Dep't_ ԀofTreasury,25F.3d237,24142(5thCir.1994).Rights p  areoftensafeguardedinthisfashion,_ Dirrane_ ,315F.3dat69 !l" (FirstAmendment);_ Gu_ v.BostonPolice_ Dep't_ ,312F.3d6,1314(1st "$ Cir.2002)(TitleVII),althoughmuchdependsuponhowthe"right" t$& isdefined,sincerightsdonotcomeinpredefinedshapesand  sizes. \  ` HowtheSupremeCourtwouldreacttosuchacasewhere X thereareconsequencesbutnocoercionisuncertain.Fifth   Amendmentlawhasoutgrownitshistoricalroots,_ Amar_ Ԁ&_ Lettow_ , `  FifthAmendmentFirstPrinciples:TheSelfIncriminationClause,93  \  Mich.L.Rev.857(1995),andtheCourthasnotbeenquiteso   hospitablerecentlytoexpandingrights.Butwewillassume d  arguendothatinsomecircumstancesaFifthAmendmentclaimmight `  bemadeoutbasedsolelyonafterthefactconsequencesoftaking   theFifthAmendment. h  ` Yetitcannotsensiblybethelawthatadministrative d measures,althoughtakeninpart"because"anemployeepledthe  FifthAmendment,areautomaticallyimpermissible.Underthecase l law,anegativeinference_ Ԁmaybedrawnbyapublicemployer--and h adverseactiontaken--"becauseof"anemployee'srefusaltoanswer  questionsaboutjobrelatedmisconduct,solongastheinferenceis p  plausibleand(perhaps)otherinformationalsosupportstheadverse !l" action.SeeBaxterv._ Palmigiano_ ,425U.S.308,31718(1976). "$ Compare_ Lefkowitz_ ,431U.S.at808n.5.Circuitcaselawisin t$& accord.SeeUnitedStatesv.Stein,233F.3d6,1417(1stCir.  &p!( 2000),cert.denied532U.S.943(2001). '#*  ` Likeall"abstract"rights,_ Garrity_ hasitslimitations. x)$, Supposelargesumsaremissingfromthecashdrawerinthestate $+t&. treasurybutthecashierdeclinestodiscussthematterwith  investigatorsoragrandjury;surelyitwouldnotbeacivilrights \ violationtoputthecashieronpaidadministrativeleavepending X investigationmerelybecausethecashierwouldforegoovertimepay.   Cf.Chan,123F.3dat100910;FraternalOrderofPolicev. `  Philadelphia,859F.2d276,28283(3rdCir.1988).Weare  \  concerned(asusual)withreasonableness,context,degreeandfit.   See,e.g.,_ Dirrane_ ,315F.3dat7071. d   ` Anobjectivestandardservesbestinthiscontext.The `  closestanalogyistotheobjectivestandardofprobablecauseor   reasonablesuspicionusedundertheFourthAmendment.E.g.,_ Whren_  h v.UnitedStates,517U.S.806(1996).Precedentaside,thereare d practicalreasonswhy,incaseslikethisone,thetestshouldbe  objective.Onceweknoworassumearguendothattherefusalto l testifyplayedsomeroleintheDepartment'sdecisionabsentthat h therewouldbenocausationeffortstodisentanglethethreads  furtherarealmosthopeless.Cf._ Dirrane_ ,315F.3dat69;Barry p  WrightCorp.v.ITT_ Grinnell_ ԀCorp.,724F.2d227,232(1stCir. !l" 1983). "$  ` Giventheobjectivecircumstancesofthiscase,wesee t$& nothingunreasonableabouttheactionstakenbythedefendants.It  &p!( isbeyonddisputeinthiscasethatunidentifiedpolicemenonthe '#* scenebadlybeatablackundercoverpoliceofficer,mistakenly x)$, believinghimtohaveshotanotherpoliceman,anditisalmost $+t&. certainthatsomeoftheotherofficerspresentknewwhohaddone  it,deniedhavingknowledge,andsupportedeachother'sstories. \ Theindividualdefendants,totheircredit,weretryingtopenetrate X thisfamiliarwallofsilenceandbringthewrongdoerstojustice.    ` _ Dwan_ Ԁmayormaynothavehadsuchknowledge.Butwhatthe `  defendantsknewwasthathehadtoldastoryastowhyhedidnot  \  seewhathappened,admittedlysupportedbyoneof_ Dwan_ 'sfellow   officersbutcontradictedinsubstancebytwoothers(whohadno d  obviousmotivetolie),and_ Dwan_ Ԁthendeclinedtotestifyaboutthe `  matterbeforeagrandjurywithoutimmunity.Onthisbasis,the   defendantswereperfectlyentitledtobeginaninvestigationinto h whether_ Dwan_ 'soriginalclaimsconstitutedfalsereportingandother d violationsofdepartmentalregulations.   ` Norwasthereanythingunreasonableinplacinghimon l administrativeleavewithpaypendingthisinvestigationeventhough h thismeanthewasnoteligibleforextradutywhichwouldhavemeant  morepay.Administrativeleave,foronereasonablysuspectedof p  seriousmisconduct,isaroutinemeasureheremitigatedby !l" continuedpay.That_ Dwan_ Ԁsufferedsomedisadvantageasdoesany "$ innocentcitizenwhoislawfullybutmistakenlyarresteddoesnot t$& makeitaconstitutionalviolation.  &p!(  ` _ Dwan_ Ԁoffersseveralfurtherargumentsinsupportofhis '#* chargeofaFifthAmendmentviolation.Onesuchclaim,thatthe x)$, defendantskneworshouldhaveknownthathewasinnocentof $+t&. wrongdoing,restssolelyonthefactthatonecolleaguesupported  hisstory.Buttwootherofficerscontradicted_ Dwan_ Ԁandhehad \ declinedtotestifybeforethegrandjury.Theobjectivefactsshow X thatthedefendantshadareasonablebasistobesuspiciousof   _ Dwan_ 'sclaim,forbeginninganinvestigation,andforsidelining `  himforaperiodofinvestigation.  \   ` _ Dwan_ Ԁalsoarguesthatthedefendants'purposeinplacing   himonadministrativeleavewastocoercehimthereaftertoabandon d  hisFifthAmendmentrights.Thereisnoevidenceofthisand `  DeputySuperintendentDowddenieditinhisdepositionbuttoavoid   apossibledisputedissueoffact,seeDiaz,112F.3dat3,wewill h assumearguendothatthedefendantswouldhavebeenpleasedif, d afterbeingplacedonadministrativeleave,_ Dwan_ Ԁhadthencooperated  fullywiththeDepartmentandthegrandjuryandwasableto l identifythosewhohadbeatenCox. h  ` Yetwehavejustheldthatthedefendantshadan  objectivelyreasonablebasisforplacing_ Dwan_ Ԁonleavewithoutpay p  pendinginvestigation,eventhoughthisstemmedinpartfromhis !l" refusaltotestify;andwehavelikewiseconcludedthatthelimited "$ burdenonhisFifthAmendmentrightsifitcanberegardedas t$& touchinguponthoserightswaspermissible.Thisbeingso,it  &p!( hardlymatterswhetherthedefendantshopedthat_ Dwan_ Ԁmightindue '#* coursedecidetocooperatewhethertoavoidtheinvestigation, x)$, regainactivestatusorforanyotherreason. $+t&.  ` Ofcoursewecanimagineacaseinwhichapublicemployer  hadanunsuspiciousreasonforplacinganemployeeonadministrative \ leavependinganinvestigation,butlaterfactsrevealedthatthe X employerwastryingtocoercetheemployeeintowaivinghisFifth   Amendmentrights.Theclearestexamplewouldbeasituationin `  whichtheemployeewastoldthathewouldberestoredtoactiveduty  \  onlyifhewaivedhisrights.Alternatively,thefactscouldbeso   egregiousthatcoercioncouldbereasonablyinferred._ Dwan_ , d  however,fallsfarshortofsuchashowing. `   ` Abouttheonlyeventfurnishinganybasisforsuspicion   istheschedulingandcancellationof_ Dwan_ 'shearings;but,given h thegenerallackofcooperationfromthoseonthesceneattheCox d beating,itisunsurprisingthattheDepartmenthaddifficulty  establishingdefinitiveproofofaviolation._ Dwan_ Ԁdoesnotallege l thatanyonesomuchashintedthathewouldberestoredtodutyif, h butonlyif,hewaivedtheprivilege.And,intheend,itwasonly  thesecondpolygraphtest(bothtestsmayhavebeenadministered p  undertheauspicesof_ Dwan_ 'scounsel)thatpersuadedtheDepartment !l" toabandonitsinvestigationof_ Dwan_ .# XYXX XY# XYXX XY "$  ` _ Dwan_ ԀfinallyallegesthattheDepartmentalthoughhaving t$& restoredhimtoactivedutyisnowrefusingtotransferhimto  &p!( anotherdivisionortolethimworkspecialassignments.The '#* districtcourtdidnotadverttothisclaimandtherecordisthin. x)$, Sofaraswecantellfromafewhints,theDepartmentmaybe $+t&. refusingovertimeandtransferstoagroupofofficerspresentat  theCoxbeatingofwhomitremainssuspicious.Inotherwords,they \ areondutywithworkandpaybutgettingnoDepartmentalfavorsor X extradetails.    ` ThissituationpresentsnoobviousFifthAmendmentclaim. `  _ Dwan_ 'stestimonyisnotbeingsought(theCoxbeatingiseightyears  \  old)andif_ Dwan_ 'spriorrefusalstotestifyareoneofthereasons   forcontinuingsuspicionofhim,wehavealreadynotedthatnegative d  inferencesoutsideofcriminalprosecutionsarenotautomatically `  forbiddenundertheFifthAmendment.Whetherundercivilservice   regulationsorpoliceunioncontractshecanbesorestrictedbased h merelyonsuspicionisnotanissuebeforeus. d  ` Becausetheindividualdefendantsdidnotviolate_ Dwan_ 's  FifthAmendmentrights,thefirstprongoftheSaucierinquiryis l decisiveintheirfavor.And,astothesecondprong,aviolation h oftheFifthAmendmentinthesecircumstancesisnot"clearly  established"orreadilyapparent.WhetheraFifthAmendmentright p  existsinthe"abstract"asitobviouslydoesisnotthequestion. !l" Andersonv._ Creighton_ ,483U.S.635,63940(1987).Thus,thereis "$ qualifiedimmunityhereevenifwearewronginfindingthat_ Dwan_ 's t$& constitutionalrightswerenotviolated.  &p!(  ` _ Dwan_ ԀfinallyclaimsinjuryundertheMassachusettsCivil '#* RightsAct,Mass.Gen.Lawsch.12,11I(2000),whichprohibits x)$, interferenceorattemptedinterferencewiththeexerciseofrights $+t&. underfederalorstatelaw.Thisclaimisdependenton_ Dwan_ 'sFifth  Amendmentclaim(becausethestatelawprotectspeoplefrom \ interferencewiththeexerciseoftheirfederalrights,see_ Sena_ v. X Massachusetts,629N.E.2d250,262(Mass.1994)),andthereforethis   claimfailsaswellalooseendthatwecanresolveonthisappeal. `  See_ Suboh_ ,298F.3dat97.  \   ` Thejudgmentofthedistrictcourtisvacatedandthe   matterremandedforproceedingsconsistentwiththisdecision. d   ` Itissoordered.# XYXX XYq#