CHRO ex. rel. Donald Rajtar v. Town of Bloomfield - Connecticut ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

64. In paragraph 4 of the draft affidavit, the complainant stated that Roshanahad stated to him on the date of the incident that “…no one had witnessedthe incident.” C-4.65. It was standard practice for subordinates to submit such draft affidavits forconsideration by supervisors and the department’s general order 5.3.1,section A3 directs that if a warrant application is denied by a supervisor it isto be sent back for modifications. TR pp 41-44, C-39.66. Sergeant Driscoll, without further inquiry, concluded that paragraph 4constituted an intentional misstatement and was not covered by the generalorder. TR p. 836.67. Upon receiving the draft affidavit (probably on February 18, 2004) SergeantDriscoll went to Sergeant Mathena convinced that the complainant had liedin paragraph 4 and shared this belief with him, despite the fact that Roshanahad yet to give a written statement and had only been spoken with on thetelephone. TR pp. 859, 861.68. Sergeant Driscoll then shared his beliefs about the affidavit with Chief Hard,before a written statement had been taken from Roshana. TR p. 896.69. The complainant maintains that he included paragraph 4, knowing itconflicted with Sergeant Driscoll’s account of what Roshana had told him,because he considered it exculpatory information (inconsistent statementsby a witness). TR p. 47.70. The complainant had been trained to include exculpatory information in anaffidavit. TR p. 48.Page 10 of 56
71. Chief Hard concluded that a written statement from Roshana would berequired and put out a directive that she did not want Sergeant Driscolltaking it. TR p. 961.72. Sergeant Driscoll and Sergeant Mathena both concluded the complainanthad lied and Sergeant Driscoll had told Sergeant Mathena that Roshanatold him she had never been spoken to by the complainant. TR p. 545.73. It was unusual for a sergeant to have taken over the investigation and asupervisor would normally assist the investigating officer. TR pp. 545, 593.74. Sergeant Mathena took Roshana’s first written statement on February 20,2004. TR p. 592, C-5.75. Roshana’s sworn statement confirmed that on a first officer’s visit, thatofficer did not speak to her at all, but also disclosed for the first time thearrival of “another officer” two hours later who did ask her “…aboutinformation on Joel….” C-5.76. Roshana’s statement does not expand on (and hence she could notreasonably have been asked by Sergeant Mathena so to do) the identity ofthe second officer and the precise nature of the “information on Joel” he hadasked about. C-5.77. As a result of Roshana’s statement of February 20, 2004, SergeantMathena and Sergeant Driscoll had notice that a second visit was made bya police officer on February 11, 2004 and that he had at least spoken toRoshana about Joel. C-5.Page 11 of 56
Page 1 and 2: STATE OF CONNECTICUTCOMMISSION ON H
Page 3 and 4: 5. Prior to the complainant’s ter
Page 5 and 6: 21. Sergeant Driscoll mistakenly be
Page 7 and 8: Sergeant Driscoll’s basket at the
Page 9: 55. Sergeant Driscoll discussed his
Page 13 and 14: interviewed Roshana or even that he
Page 15 and 16: never talked to Roshana, while igno
Page 17 and 18: 105. The complainant confirmed to L
Page 19 and 20: submitted his February 26, 2004 C-9
Page 21 and 22: 133. The complainant had no prior h
Page 23 and 24: 146. On or about March 10, 2004 Lie
Page 25 and 26: 164. Officers may be reluctant to g
Page 27 and 28: exoneration of Sergeant Driscoll cl
Page 29 and 30: 195. Multiple copies of a pamphlet
Page 31 and 32: handled the complainant’s grievan
Page 33 and 34: 223. Lieutenant Willauer concluded
Page 35 and 36: 238. By arbitration award dated Dec
Page 37 and 38: complainant must show that: (1) he
Page 39 and 40: explanation is pretextual, and unwo
Page 41 and 42: of persuasion placed upon him by Re
Page 43 and 44: the complainant. Lieutenant Willaue
Page 45 and 46: ecommendation. I do not find that t
Page 47 and 48: Lee’s having words with Marlon an
Page 49 and 50: complainant would have been given a
Page 51 and 52: o The emails certainly qualify as t
Page 53 and 54: he clearly had resigned himself to
Page 55 and 56: for COBRA coverage and allowed his

CHRO ex. rel. Donald Rajtar v. Town of Bloomfield - Connecticut ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?