Bryant v. Police officer Standards & Training Council

Decision Date28 August 2017
Docket NumberHHBCV166033504S
PartiesCharles Bryant v. Police Officer Standards and Training Council, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection
CourtConnecticut Superior Court

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Sheila A. Huddleston, Judge.

The plaintiff, Charles Bryant, challenges the decision of the defendant Police Officer Standards and Training Council Division of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (council), which revoked his certification as a probationary candidate under the authority of General Statutes § § 7-294d(c)(2)(I), 7-294d(c)(2)(B), and 7-294d(c)(2)(C). The plaintiff had previously resigned his position to avoid being fired as a result of an internal affairs investigation. The council claims that the plaintiff's appeal is moot because it cannot certify a person who is not actively employed as a police officer and General Statutes § 7-291c precludes any police department from hiring an officer who has previously resigned as a result of an internal affairs investigation. The plaintiff argues, to the contrary, that because § 7-291c became effective on October 1, 2015, after the plaintiff's resignation, application of § 7-291c to the plaintiff would be impermissibly retroactive under decisions of the United States Supreme Court and our own Supreme Court. The plaintiff further argues that the council (1) impermissibly determined that it would " never again" certify the plaintiff as a police officer; (2) impermissibly shifted the burden of proof at the de novo hearing to the plaintiff and predetermined its outcome; and (3) reached conclusions that are not supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, as required by General Statutes § 7-294d(c)(2).

After consideration of all the evidence in the record and the relevant legal authorities, the court concludes that the plaintiff's appeal is not moot because General Statutes § 7-291c cannot be applied retrospectively to preclude his possible future employment as a police officer. Addressing the merits of the plaintiff's claims, the court further concludes, however, that the plaintiff failed to establish that the council impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to him or predetermined the outcome of the de novo hearing. He also failed to establish that the council's findings under General Statutes § § 7-294d(c)(2)(B) and (C) are improper under the applicable burden of proof and standard of review. Because either of those findings, standing alone, would adequately support the council's decision, the court need not address the plaintiff's claims of error under General Statutes § 7-294d(c)(2)(I). The plaintiff's appeal is therefore dismissed.

I FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The following facts and procedural history are set out by the council's hearing officer in a report and proposed final decision issued on December 8, 2015. Record (R.), pp. 181-96. These facts are supported by the evidence in the record, also cited herein.

The plaintiff, Charles M. Bryant III, was appointed as a probationary candidate with the New Haven Police Department (department) on November 10, 2014, and became a member of the New Haven Police Academy Session 192-NH. As required by General Statutes § 7-294d, all training was approved in advance by, and conducted under the authority of, the council. R., p. 183.

In applying for a position with the department, the plaintiff reviewed, completed, and signed a number of forms that stated the importance of honesty in the application process. R., p 193. More specifically, on August 12, 2014, he signed the " New Haven Police Department Police Officer Applicant Questionnaire (Long Form)" (applicant questionnaire) R., pp. 137-46. The first page of the applicant questionnaire contained the following warning: " An applicant who intentionally makes a false statement of any material fact or practices or attempts any deception or fraud in his or her application . . . may be disqualified from the selection process immediately." R., p. 137. On August 13, 2014, in connection with his application to the department, the plaintiff signed the " New Haven Police Department Police Officer Applicant Integrity Statement, " which contained extensive warnings about the need for complete honesty in all application documents.[1] The plaintiff signed this form, under oath, under the printed statement: " I have read and understand the contents of this statement." R., p. 148. Finally, on September 9, 2014 the plaintiff completed and signed the " Personal Data Questionnaire--Police Officer Candidate--PDCS 5145f" (personal data questionnaire). The personal data questionnaire contained the following warning: " To be considered for the position of police officer, the New Haven Police Department requires as part of your background investigation, that you complete truthfully and without omission, the Candidate Personal Data Questionnaire. Failure to complete this questionnaire, or providing false information or omissions thereon, will result in your removal from consideration or appointment, pursuant to the provisions of section 53a-157b of the Connecticut General Statutes regarding making a false statement." R., p. 126.

In May 2015, the department initiated an internal affairs investigation of the plaintiff, who was still a probationary candidate at that time. R., pp. 115-23. He had an internal affairs interview on May 28, 2015. R., pp. 161-75. The interview was conducted by Sergeant Elliot Rosa, with Lt Racheal Cain, the officer in charge of internal affairs, also present. R., p. 162. The plaintiff was represented by two union representatives during the interview. R., p. 162. On July 10, 2015, after a meeting with the department's chief, the plaintiff resigned his position to avoid being fired. R., pp. 84, 183.

The plaintiff was subsequently notified, by letter dated August 11, 2015, that the council was considering the revocation of his probationary candidate status. R., pp. 106-08, 181. By this letter, the plaintiff was advised of his rights to a compliance conference and to a de novo hearing. The plaintiff's attorney subsequently informed the council that the plaintiff elected both a compliance conference and a de novo hearing. R., pp. 112, 181.

At the plaintiff's de novo hearing on October 27, 2015, Cain, the officer in charge of the department's internal affairs division, testified that part of the investigation involved questioning the plaintiff's veracity in completing his sworn application and personal questionnaire. R., pp. 24-25, 184. At his internal affairs interview, the plaintiff signed a department " False Statement Warning Form" that advised him that if he made a false statement intended to mislead a law enforcement officer in the performance of an official investigation, he would be in violation of General Statutes § 53a-157b. R., pp. 33, 124, 163, 184. The warning form further set out the terms of § 53a-157b. R., pp. 33, 163, 184.

As noted above, on August 12, 2014, the plaintiff had signed the department's applicant questionnaire, with its warning that false statements on the form may disqualify a candidate. R., pp. 137-46, 184. On page 8 of the applicant questionnaire, under the category " Educational Background, " the plaintiff represented that he had attended Wagner College in Staten Island, New York, from August 2003, through November 2006. R., pp. 141, 184. In the space labeled " Degree/Credits, " the plaintiff wrote " Associates" and did not indicate the number of credits he had received at Wagner College. R., pp. 141, 184.

During the internal investigation, the department obtained a copy of the plaintiff's Wagner College transcript. The spaces for " Degree Conferred" and " Degree Completed" are blank. R., pp. 155-56, 184. There is no evidence that Wagner College conferred an associate's degree on the plaintiff.

At his de novo hearing, the plaintiff explained, under oath, that he believed he had obtained an associate's degree because he had completed two years of college at Wagner College and believed he had enough credits to qualify for an associate's degree. He claimed that he was not purposely trying to lie to or mislead the department. R., pp. 70-72, 184-85. The hearing officer did not find his statements regarding the associate's degree to be intentionally false. See R., p. 196.

On page 8 of the applicant questionnaire, question 20 inquired: " Have you ever been disciplined, suspended or expelled from any type of school or training?" R., p. 141. The plaintiff checked the " No" box and printed " N/A" in response to the following instruction: " If YES, provide the agency name, date and circumstances." R., pp. 141, 185.

Exhibit 7 at the de novo hearing was a letter to the plaintiff from Sofia B. Pertuz, Assistant Dean for Campus Life, Wagner College, dated May 11, 2005. R., pp. 150, 189-90. Pertuz represented that the letter was a follow-up to an administrative hearing held on May 6, 2005, in which the plaintiff was charged with damage to college property in violation of the college's code of conduct. Based on the plaintiff's statement and the statements of other witnesses, Pertuz found that the plaintiff was responsible for the violation. She further stated: " During our conversation, I found several contradictions in your statements that caused me to question your credibility in this situation. I have reviewed your file and found that you have a number of past incidents that resulted in disciplinary action. Considering all information in your file, especially the fact that you are currently on disciplinary probation which had already been extended, I have recommended suspension from Wagner College for one semester. In addition,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT