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

Williamson (Joel), and returned to headquarters to try to identify him further.TR p. 17.28. The complainant did not speak to Caines or Roshana before returning toheadquarters. TR p. 18.29. The complainant was not able to further identify the suspect at headquartersthat day. TR p. 19.30. The complainant had obtained a cursory description (young black male) ofJoel and wrote it down in his notebook but did not put it in his report. TR p.20, C-1, C-14.31. The complainant had not issued a “BOLO” (“Be on the lookout for…”)because the description he had of Joel would have matched most youngmales in the area. TR pp. 24, 25.32. The complainant returned to Lee’s approximately two hours after his firstvisit to determine if Marlon had dropped off additional information on Joel’sidentity. TR p. 25.33. Marlon was not there and the complainant spoke briefly with Roshana whotold him Marlon had not dropped off any additional information. TR p. 26.34. The complainant maintains that he asked Roshana if she or the otheremployee had witnessed the incident and she responded in the negative.TR p. 26.35. The complainant discussed the incident briefly with Sergeant Driscoll,showed him Marlon’s statement, finished his incident report and put it inPage 6 of 56