Hamden Cop-Record Shredding Questioned

Hamden shredded over 100 police internal affairs files while an open-records request for them was pending — prompting a town investigation and a decision by the state to disallow further destruction of documents by Hamden police.

Tom Hennick, the public information officer for the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission, and LeAnn Burbank, the public records administrator at the Connecticut State Library, criticized the document-shredding Monday after it was discovered that the Hamden Police Department had attempted to destroy 100 files of unsubstantiated internal affairs investigations — after a police commissioner, Daniel Dunn, had cited FOI law in an official request to review seven years worth of civilian complaints and use of force reports. 

On March 17, the state of Connecticut signed off on Hamden officers’ request to destroy 100 volumes of police records. The town did not inform the state that a police commissioner had cited FOI law to review records of potential police misconduct falling within the category of internal affairs less than a month earlier.

Garrett and Chief of Police John Sullivan signed off on a request put forward by a sergeant from the department’s Ethics and Integrity Unit, according to Burbank, to destroy the documents on March 3 and 9, respectively. (Click here to read that request.)

Mayor Lauren Garrett told the Independent Monday that she was unaware when she signed off on the form, which was submitted to the Connecticut State Library’s Office Of Public Records Administration, that the documents set for erasure may have overlapped with records requested by Commissioner Dunn.

Dunn had already filed his FOI request in February to examine civilian complaints and use of force reports filed with the police department from 2016 through 2022. (The New Haven Register reported here on a ​“clash” that followed between the department and the commission when Dunn’s request went unanswered for months.)

Garrett said Town Attorney Sue Gruen informed her on Thursday of last week that 100 paper public records had been shredded after Dunn had made requests to review them. It is unclear exactly what contents the records included or how many of them fit into batches of files specifically requested by Dunn. All that is clearly understood is that the records set for destruction were unsubstantiated internal affairs investigations filed by the department between the first of January, 2019, and March 3, 2020. 

“There are electronic copies of almost all of it,” Garrett said, adding that it was her understanding that ​“the electronic copies were supposed to be destroyed along with the paper copies, but that didn’t happen, fortunately.”

Then she noted, ​“We’re still trying to find out if we have electronic copies of all of it — or almost all of it.”

The incident has raised several questions, one of which is: Why would the police department seek to destroy records, specifically after they had been requested for review?

Police Chief John Sullivan declined to comment on the matter, referring questions to Town Attorney Gruen. Gruen, too, declined comment.

Hennick told the Independent that the issue exists in a gray area. 

But, he said, ​“if there’s a pending request for destruction, and an FOI request has been submitted, my instruction is always no. 

“You can’t do that,” he stated.

If the records contain private information, it would be more than appropriate to redact or withhold information from the public. It could even be okay, he said, for the state to sign off on their destruction — as long as the destruction took place after the FOI request was clearly met.

Burbank said she was never informed by the police department that an FOI request had even been made.

She learned only this past Friday, from Town Attorney Gruen, that Dunn had requested the records. By that time police officers had already put the 100 paper documents through the shredding machine.

On Monday, Burbank told the town that she would be putting a hold on all disposition requests from the Hamden Police Department.

“We have been in contact with the department, and we are putting a hold on all disposition requests from the Hamden Police Department as of today,” Elise Marzik, an electronic records analyst in the Office of Public Records Administration, wrote in a direct quote to Commissioner Dunn in an email message on the same date. 

“This is very serious. We’re obviously taking it very seriously,” Mayor Garrett stated. She said
the town is currently investigating the legal and ethical implications of the matter. They are working with the town attorney to determine exactly what the scope of that search should be. 

In the meantime, Garrett said she will be sending out a memo demanding that all police reports be copied to the mayor’s office upon submission. 

Un-Dunn

The destruction of the public records followed inquiries made by Dunn, one of five commissioners nominated by Mayor Garrett back in January.

He and fellow new Commissioner Rhonda Caldwell were considered controversial picks. They volunteered for the job with a promise to promote police accountability. Republican Legislative Council members opposed their appointments on the grounds that the pair presented ​“anti-police bias.”

On Feb. 25, roughly a month after he was sworn into office, Commissioner Dunn submitted requests under the state Freedom of Information Act to obtain copies of public civilian complaints and use of force reports filed with the Hamden Police Department between 2016 and 2022. 

Two months later, on April 27, Dunn had received only a partial response to his request. The Hamden Police Department and town attorney sent him 34 use of force reports from 2020 and another two logged in 2021. 

It wasn’t until April 29 that the town attorney sent him a handful of scanned civilian complaints, just one from 2022 and five from 2021, plus a sixth report with redacted information. (Click here and here to read those reports.)

Dunn wrote back to the town attorney, asking why the sixth civilian complaint had not been released to him in full. 

An email sent to Dunn from Gruen dated this Friday stated that the Hamden Police Department had argued that one of the incidents forming the basis of the complaint included uncorroborated allegations and the records were therefore ​“subject to destruction” under Connecticut General Statutes.

“The matter is currently pending,” she wrote in an email to Dunn. ​“I am still determining if further documents related to that complaint may be released and will supplement further.”

She concluded the email: ​“I left you a VM [voice message] to discuss further disclosure to you as a member of the police commission.”

Dunn told the Independent that that same day, he spoke with Mayor Garrett and the town attorney to discuss the status of the requested records. He was told that following his FOI requests, members of the police department had made moves to ​“destroy” select documents that he had requested to review. He said he was not informed which records, or how many, had been impacted and why.

In an email dated April 30, Dunn wrote to Garrett thanking her for informing him and fellow Commissioner Rhonda Caldwell that ​“some public records in custody of the Hamden Police Department and responsive to an open FOI request were destroyed or were attempted to be destroyed.”

“As discussed, please direct the Hamden Police Department to cease any further destruction of records until a thorough and independent investigation is conducted and all police commissioners have reviewed the details of what was destroyed/retained/recovered.”

He added that he had contacted the state FOI Commission and the public records administrator at the Connecticut State Library regarding the disclosure that attempts had been made to destroy documents. 

Frank LaDore, another commissioner, said he does not take issue with the record destruction.

“The perception is they’re trying to destroy files,” he said. ​“I don’t think that’s it.”

He said he was under the impression that the department ​“expunge some records” on a regular basis, perhaps yearly.

Burbank told the Independent that the Public Records Offices does not have ​“specific requirements or procedures for the frequency under which records are destroyed (i.e. monthly, annually, at the end of the fiscal year, etc.), but municipalities and state agencies must meet our requirements for the minimum retention, ensure that there are no pending cases, claims or actions, and receive the approved destruction authorization back from our office prior to disposing of any records.”

The Independent did obtain copies of past authorized records dispositions from the Hamden police department between 2017 and 2022. Among other items they requested for destruction, they did receive authorization in 2020 to dispose of more unsubstantiated internal affairs investigation files from 2016 through the end of 2017. They did the same thing in September of 2018, throwing out 100 files from 2014 through 2015.

The reason LaDore cited for the shredding taking place after the FOI request rather than earlier in the year was a lack of hires to get the work done.

“Our main duty is to hire,” he asserted.

He was more concerned with a different question: ​“What is the reason for requesting all this information?” he asked of Dunn and the other commissioners. ​“Are they looking for something specific? What are they gonna do with it?”

“I requested those records so that we could do our job as a police commission to provide oversight,” Dunn told the Independent.

“Prior to us being appointed, it didn’t seem like much was going on in the commission, certainly not in regard to reviewing records … It’s clearly outlined in the town charter that we are to hear and review complaints that are made by civilians. We’ve requested to do that numerous times and haven’t been given the information. So I submitted a FOIA request to once again legally compel them to provide the information.

“The fact that they destroyed those is alarming. I honestly can’t believe it.”

Dunn concluded: ​“This is a clear indication that not only does this department not want to be transparent, they’re actively working against transparency.”