Hamden Admits Fault In Cop Doc-Shredding Case

Hamden cops won’t have to testify under oath about why they illegally destroyed public documents, now that their attorney admitted they did it.

That’s the upshot of a two-part hearing of the state’s Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) about a complaint filed by Daniel Dunn, one of Hamden’s five police commissioners. The complaint concerns the withholding and destruction of years worth of police reports Dunn requested to review under the Freedom of Information Act back in early 2022.

Dunn filed that complaint with the FOIC last April after the Hamden Police Department failed to provide him with the documents he had asked to read — including all civilian complaints and use of force reports filed with the department between 2016 and 2022 — and then shredded 100 unsubstantiated internal affairs reports while Dunn’s request was pending. Read more about that here.

The commission has held two hearings looking into whether or not the police department and town actually stood in the way of Dunn accessing public documents. The commission has the power to subpoena the cops involved, to impose civil penalties and to make judgements about whether the cops involved had malicious intent, but a ruling on the matter has yet to be released.

The commission’s hearing officer, Zachary Hyde, has until April 13 to publish his findings from the two hearings, which were held in Hartford on Jan. 26 and March 9. During those hearings, the Hamden Police Department was represented by Attorney Bryan Leclerc while Attorney Joseph Sastre represented plaintiff Daniel Dunn.

Hyde’s expected to issue a decision about what documents the city must hand over to Dunn, who still has yet to receive all of the documents he asked for last year, given that certain officers have refrained from handing over some documents on the basis of personal privacy objections.

It remains unclear whether Hyde will officially determine that the city and police department violated the Freedom of Information Act. But Leclerc said during the hearing that the department had destroyed both physical and electronic copies of two substantiated, two unsubstantiated, and one settled internal affairs reports that should have been granted to Dunn through his original FOI request.

“The respondents are stipulating that there was a violation. There is a technical violation that will be written into the report,” Hyde stated at the most recent hearing.

Mayor Lauren Garrett herself has admitted that Hamden is at fault. 

“The Town agreed there was a technical violation of FOIA due to the destruction of documents,” she wrote in a text to the Independent. ​“The vast majority of documents have been provided. Actions have been taken to ensure this never happens again.”

She recently signed an ordinance put forward by Legislative Council members Justin Farmer, Laurie Sweet and Abdul Osmanu that will increase the time minimum required for both the police and fire departments to retain public records. That ordinance also requires that public safety officials notify the mayor at least two months before submitting plans for destruction of records to the Connecticut Office of the Public Records Administrator.

Now that the town has admitted its wrongdoing, Daniel Dunn has agreed to halt the investigation and wait for the hearing officer’s ruling. He won’t proceed with questioning police officials under oath.

“He’s gotten out of this all that he’s going to,” his attorney, Joseph Sastre, told the Independent. ​“It didn’t make a lot of sense to push the commission to do anything more for us,” he said.

Sastre said the likelihood is low of the commission placing a financial penalty on the town or police department. He said that the goal of the hearing from his and Dunn’s perspective was instead to ensure the commission puts on the record that Hamden violated FOIA law and move the town to take action that would prevent similar scenarios from happening again.

However, if the hearing officer fails to put the FOIA violation on the record through his published ruling, Sastre said, he and Dunn will appeal the findings.

“If the hearing officer doesn’t make a record then the exact same thing is just gonna happen again,” Sastre stated.