New Haven Independent

Posted by: Our Town | February 28, 2007 12:42 PM

I'm just wondering at the choice of the sensational headline. I would hope your reporters state the facts and the headline writers somehow relate the headline to the story.

Posted by: Cedar Hill Resident | February 28, 2007 12:47 PM

Wow to the accident, but my Wow is to the threat to the reporter? What would of made the officer respond that way? There must be more to the story than we know maybe the pursuit was handled improperly.

Posted by: Aquarius Rising | February 28, 2007 2:06 PM

A suggestion is for residents, especially on that street get their Alderperson to join with them in making Yale Avenue one way in different directions in the 2 main parts of it. Perhaps one way from Edgewood towards Derby Ave and one way from Edgewood towards Central.

Posted by: Captain John Serra | February 28, 2007 4:01 PM

The stolen vehicle referred to in your article was seen by a West Haven Police Officer on Derby Avenue near a store that has had many recent robberies where innocent hard working employees have had guns put in their faces by some very dangerous persons. The vehicle was suspicious and the alert Officer ran a routine registration check which revealed the vehicle as being stolen, it should be noted that most crimes of violence are perpetrated with a stolen motor vehicle. . The Officer notified headquarters and followed (no lights and siren) the vehicle east on Derby Avenue, simultaneously supervisors were working in the background to bring technical resources into the area which would avoid a vehicular pursuit. When the stolen vehicle entered New Haven on Yale Avenue the operator likely realized he was being followed by the Police Officer, the operator then accelerated and engaged the Officer in a pursuit situation. In less than a minute the operator lost control the vehicle and ran away on foot. In most pursuit situations it takes a minute or two for supervisors to make a valid decision based on real time information as to allow the pursuit to continue, in this particular situation and is very likely that this pursuit would have terminated by a supervisor if it did not end in less than a minute. I spoke with Sergeant Celentano who told me that it was the photographer’s proximity to the crash and not the picture taking that was an issue. It has been a long established lawful tradition for investigating Officers to establish an inner an outer perimeter when investigating incidents. This is done to protect the integrity of a potential crime scene and for the safety on innocent bystanders. The West Haven Police Department has worked hard on the inherent dangers of Police pursuits and has invested heavily with comprehensive policies, technologies and training to reduce the danger and still apprehend dangerous felons. I apologize for the misunderstanding about the photo taking and have taken steps to reinforce to my Officers that picture taking from a safe position should never be interfered with.

John Serra
Captain Of Uniform Services
West Haven Police Department
200 Saw Mill Road
West Haven, CT. 06516
(203) 937-3942
Fax (203) 937-3700

Posted by: charlie | February 28, 2007 4:40 PM

Making streets one way is a bad idea. It would just make the traffic in the area go faster. A better solution might be to do curb "bump-outs" or place barriers between the bicycle lane and traffic lane. The simple act of just narrowing the street would slow traffic down tremendously.

Posted by: Anna | February 28, 2007 5:03 PM

All that making Yale Ave one-way in two directions will do is push its traffic onto other neighborhood streets and make the morning commute for people living on Yale and Willard even more of a headache. If calming traffic is the goal, the best way to accomplish that on a very wide street is to make the road narrower by for example, placing a median in the center. Narrower roads have the psychological effect of slowing people down.

Posted by: Paul Bass | February 28, 2007 5:58 PM

Thank you for your comments, Sgt. Serra. In this case, there was no marked off crime scene. It was well past the accident. There was no activity taking place near the car; Sgt. Celentano was hanging out at another car with other officers. When he charged at me, and I identified myself as a reporter, he repeatedly mentioned the taking of photographs as "interfering" and cause for arrest. He said if I took one more photo, he would arrest me. He refused to explain how taking a photograph was interfering. I appreciate the need for officers to secure an area and do a job, and recognize the great stress they can be under while protecting the public. I feel he was way out of control in this situation, and skirting the line on the Constitution. Good luck catching the driver!

Posted by: nfjanette | February 28, 2007 11:10 PM

I agree with Paul Bass's concerns, but I do note that Captain Serra's comments were well written and included important information about the circumstances of the pursuit and crash.

Posted by: JON | March 1, 2007 11:35 AM

Here we go again!!!!!!!!!
Restructure everything to acomodate the screwball drivers!!!!!!
Yale Ave has been like that for at least 70 years,every accident has been drivers error!!!!
Let's get real, and stop finding dumb ideas which only increase our taxes.
This girl does not know who she was with Bullshit--- nail her also

Posted by: New Haven resident | March 1, 2007 11:56 AM

With all due respect, Captain Serra's statement reads like an effort to avoid potential legal liability. Leaving aside claims that the vehicle was inherently "suspicious" or that the driver conveniently did not increase his speed until crossing into New Haven, how can one think that the driver "engaged the Officer in a pursuit situation"? According to the captain, police were following without lights or siren on, that is, without providing any notice that the driver need pull over. Moreover, the rationale to pursue a stolen vehicle into a neighboring jurisdiction, particularly after it had reportedly accelerated, seems highly questionable. Of note, nothing in the captain's post provides a basis to support the passing notion that police had any reason to believe the individual driving the car was "a dangerous felon." Rather, the accounting of the incident suggests that lives were put at risk needlessly by police action. Also, a more probing inquiry puts the sergeant's apparently unwarranted threat of arrest into a different, arguably more telling, context.

Posted by: snooper | March 1, 2007 11:15 PM

The reason for his improper behavior was that it had been a police chase.

Police often lie about the events that occur during police chases. Police often lie period.

police can't get their chase policies together either and run chases in environments that in some states and cities would violate chase policies. But here, they don't want to face up to any policy that would restrict their individual, not always good judgment on the matter. They'll run chases in crowded rush hour traffic where the risk to injury far outweighs the risk the suspect poses if they leave off, or use another method to stop the fleeing suspect. They like to invoke their immunity and shirk responsibility in the face of any accusation that their chase was improper and caused harm to anyone nearby who was hurt. Probably they feel their weak chase policies help them squirm out of this in court cases. They also feel that their needs and values should outweigh any conflicting ones in the community and will go to the legislature and city hall to make sure politicians see it their way and keep it their way. Often, they succeed. They succeed almost all the time, actually.

They'll ram a car in high traffic when it can get innocent people killed.

Police are police. Some a great some aren't and as a whole, you don't want them running your communities. As a whole, they are stress factories, churning out confrontations and escalations. Ordering people around, and being divisive. Being the law instead of enforcing the law, much less protecting your rights.

A chase as long as this one was, possibly was one where they could have had sticks to deflate the car in place down the road somewhere. Maybe they tried that, or his route was too unpredictable, but if they could have and didn't, well they should have.

The chase policies are a ticking time bomb and it won't be until someone gets killed that something is done.

Posted by: some fun with logic | March 1, 2007 11:47 PM

This reminds me of the reporter who was ordered to stop taking notes in a court room. when the press jumped all over it, they changed their story and said it wasn't the note taking that caused the judge to demand the reporter stop taking notes.

OK. Cool. Let's all take some thorazine and drool on each other.

It wouldn't kill cops to tell people that they are establishing a perimeter and showing a reporter where it is. And in fact, they do it everyday. They don't die from it. If this cop had wanted to do that, and intended that, then he WOULD HAVE. Right? He did what he intended to do, which was violate Paul's rights and threaten to violate them more if he continued to exercise them. He was maybe embarassed or stressed out from the chase, or maybe trying to shut down access because it had been a chase, or maybe he is a big dummy all the time, who knows.

I believe Paul's account of the officer's comments, so we know that there was no discussion about perimeters with Paul. The officer, as Paul relayed, just threw his bad-ass weight around like the god that he knows he is. If he was engaged in setting a perimeter, ( a dubious claim at best) he was also engaged, by logical necessity, in the process known as "I am the law and I don't have to tell you what process I am engaged in or why I am ordering you around."

that just brings us back to where we were -- intending to violate Paul's rights and actually violating Paul's rights.

That isn't the same as setting a perimeter and telling people where it is.

Therefore -- try to follow me here -- in fact, it wasn't perimeter setting, even if it was because 1. threatening arrest for no reason and 2. perimeter setting and informing the public of it are, in fact, not the same thing.

Whether the good angel on the cop's shoulder was telling him to stop threatening Paul and get busy setting a perimeter is another story altogether. Maybe he should talk to his mom about it. I don't know why he would bring this personal conflict ragin inside him to the public.

I have issues too. Can I throw it at you and explain later? Is that OK?

Since we are on the subject, keeping a reporter as far away as possible is not a legitiate factor in deciding where to mark the perimeter either. Just for reference so we can avoid this in the future. That isn't the issue here, because what happened here wasn't a perimeter issue as we all know and as I proved.

Does everyone get what I have been proving?

Anywho, just thought I would attend to this question quite closely for all of us, so that we all know the truth, that the truth is what it is and isn't just exactly what we want it to be, just the right shade to fix the press, etc.

Best of luck to West Haven PD. Hope you get the guy ... if he is the kind of guy you say he is. I'm sure it will all make a great story under oath.

Posted by: Rich | March 2, 2007 8:47 AM

Maybe the fact is, Paul "The Photographer" has a complex of look at me! -0~0-

You konw what Westville is a pretty safe neighborhood, these things happen, they happen everywhere. And when something hits Westvlle we all get in a frenzy.
This stuff happens everyday in the Hood....And around Town.

As for the police situation (not defending the officer I wasn't there at the scene of the accident) but I witnessed the case coming southbound on West Elm croosing West Rock, the black car driving with excessive speed not paying attention to the 4-way stop was followed by the West Haven cruiser, which had his lights on, and slowed down at the 4-way stop. Then after that I can only read what happened..
Unless you are in the the officers shoes day to day you have no clue what they go through in any situation. So back off and give them the respect-if you are need assitance from the police you will think they are your best friend.
With that said See Ya!!

Posted by: same old story | March 2, 2007 8:46 PM

Here we go, when police are disrespectful, there is always one in the crowd who demands the respectful citizens become Even MORE respectful of this cop. My god, it verges on idolatry. Obsequious