Investigation found former Framingham cops possessed cocaine, records say

A Framingham Police Department investigation found in February that two former police officers unlawfully possessed cocaine and tested positive for drugs, according to public records. One of the officers did not cooperate with the investigation, the records say.

The two officers—Reece Black and Kyle Pursell, the latter of whom was a detective—are no longer employed by the police department. The department said in February that it terminated Black as a result of the findings. Pursell resigned on January 9, a month before the investigation was completed, according to his resignation email.

A search of online court records Saturday afternoon did not reveal any criminal charges against either officer in Framingham District Court or Middlesex County Superior Court.

The Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office is investigating the allegations, according to a spokesperson for the office.

The police department has publicly said little about the investigation’s findings. However, new details were revealed in Brady disclosures about the officers that the district attorney’s office released Friday in response to a public records request.

The Brady disclosure for each officer says that officer was found to have been “involved in the purchase and possession of cocaine and had a positive result on a drug test.” The alleged misconduct “occurred between approximately August 1 and September 11, 2025, and was first reported to the Framingham Police Department on September 11, 2025,” the records say.

The Brady documents—named after a 1963 US Supreme Court decision—are used by prosecutors to inform defendants in criminal cases about alleged misconduct by officers testifying against them. Prosecutors are required to make these disclosures so that defendants can challenge the officers’ credibility in court.

Neither officer presently appears on the district attorney’s Brady list, which was last updated on January 15, prior to the completion of the investigation.

In response to the records request, the district attorney’s office said it did not have copies of the police department’s internal affairs records detailing the investigation.

A spokesperson for the district attorney’s office did not answer a question about whether any criminal cases have been impacted by the officers’ alleged misconduct.

The Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission’s website lists the law-enforcement certification status for both Black and Pursell as “restricted,” meaning they have valid certification but are not currently employed by a law-enforcement agency.

According to the Brady records, the police department found on February 6 that both Black and Pursell violated policies against criminal conduct, controlled substances, association with known criminals, and conduct unbecoming an officer or employee.

The department found that Pursell violated two additional policies when “his taser was not properly secured in his department-issued vehicle” and “he used his department-issued vehicle for personal transportation and transported civilian passengers,” the records say.

The department also determined earlier, on September 17, that Pursell violated two policies when he “failed to cooperate with an investigation into his alleged drug-related activities” and “failed to report to the police station at a specific date and time as ordered by a superior,” the records say.

In an unrelated investigation, the department concluded in February 2022 that Pursell’s “personal firearm, which was improperly stored, was stolen from his personal vehicle while he was off duty on October 18, 2021,” according to the records. The department found that Pursell violated a policy against conduct unbecoming an officer or employee and suspended him for 10 days, the records say.

The district attorney’s office did not redact any of the Brady records or charge a fee to produce them.

In contrast, when the Dump requested Black and Pursell’s internal affairs records from the police department in February, the department demanded a $525 fee to produce redacted copies, citing six exemptions to the Public Records Law.

The department said it needs to spend 23 hours reviewing 288 pages of documents (nearly five minutes per page) to remove exempt information. The department said it was charging the maximum hourly rate allowed under the Public Records Law, which is $25 per hour with the first two hours provided at no cost.

One of the exemptions cited by the department, the privacy exemption, says that it “shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation,” according to the Public Records Law.

The Dump asked Framingham Police Chief Lester Baker and Lieutenant Rachel Mickens to provide the documents with minimal redactions and at no charge. The Public Records Law says that municipalities may voluntarily waive fees “upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government.”

However, Mickens refused to do so without providing any explanation.

“I have spoken with the Chief and the Records Department. The fee will not be waived for this request,” she wrote in an email on March 16.

After receiving the $525 fee estimate, the Dump also filed an appeal with the supervisor of public records, the transparency watchdog who serves in the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Office.

The supervisor ruled on Wednesday that the police department failed to justify the fee. The supervisor ordered the department to provide a new response that complies with the Public Records Law.

When the police department first announced that it was conducting the misconduct investigation in September, Framingham Mayor Charlie Sisitsky said he would provide “transparency to the extent of the laws,” according to The MetroWest Daily News.

Sisitsky did not respond to questions or a request to waive the fee, saying only that he forwarded the message to the police chief.

The Dump reached out to Sisitsky, Baker, and Mickens again after receiving the documents from the district attorney’s office and the ruling from the supervisor. This story will be updated if any of them respond.

Thanks for reading! As always, if you’d like to keep The Mass Dump running, please consider becoming a financial supporter either by signing up for a paid subscription to this newsletter below, becoming a Patreon supporter, or sending a tip via PayPal or Venmo. I rely on your support to keep doing this work, and a monthly subscription is just $5!

Even if you can’t afford a paid sub, please sign up for a free one to get updates about this story, and please share this article on social media.

You can follow me on Bluesky and Mastodon. You can email me at aquemere0@gmail.com.

Anyway, that’s all for now.