Does EHPD Really Have a Lying Problem?

 In the past 11+ years that I've worked at EHPD, up until a little over a year ago I had only seen one non-probationary employee terminated, and I can't remember hearing of anyone being found guilty of lying. Yet somehow, in the last 15 months or so we've had five members investigated for "lying" and four terminations. So what's changed? Let's look at a brief overview of some of these cases of alleged "lying" and see if we can figure it out.

In one case we had an Officer with over 20 years on the job, who stated in an Internal Affairs interview that he was escorting a lost motorist to the highway. He was asked where he began the escort and at first wasn't sure, but after being pressed for an answer eventually gave a location. The IA Investigator went to multiple businesses along his route and asked to view their security cameras. Two of the businesses complied, one near where the Officer claimed he began the escort, and another near the end. The camera near the starting point didn't show the vehicle the Officer described behind his cruiser. However, the camera near where the escort ended did in fact show the exact car he described as the very next vehicle on the road a short distance behind the cruiser. 

Now any reasonable person would take that information and figure that perhaps the Officer was mistaken about where exactly the escort began, but clearly the escort did occur based on the second camera confirming his story. However this wasn't enough for our IA division, they still accused the Officer of lying about the escort, and Chief Sansom terminated him. 

Then we had another case that has been detailed here before, where two 20+ year veteran Officers were accused of making statements to members of a construction crew on a job site during a conversation. There was no evidence other than the statements from four workers, who actually contradicted each other on some points, and one of whom even admitted that he was on a different job site in another part of Town when the conversation in question occurred, and didn't actually witness anything first hand. However when the Officers denied the accusations against them, they were also charged with lying simply because they disagreed with the people who were accusing them. By this standard, you're not even allowed to defend yourself against an allegation without being called a liar. Apparently due process isn't a thing we do in East Hartford any more.

Lastly we have the most recent case involving a car chase of an armed felon in a stolen vehicle that ended in a crash. Here again the Officers were asked numerous questions about exactly where they were at precise times during the incident, over two months after it happened. Prior to the interview IA had already pulled surveillance footage, and GPS data from the cruisers. But IA didn't allow the Officers to view any of this information before answering their questions. Some of this data was actually pretty inaccurate however, and months later when the Officers were finally allowed to see it after the investigation was over, they found that it seemed to show one of the cruisers in different locations at the same time, and at one point even shows a cruiser moving backwards. Note that at the time this incident occurred we did not yet have body cameras.

Despite all of these inconsistencies in the evidence, when the account the Officers gave put them a couple hundred yards away from where IA thought they were based on videos and GPS the Officers were never allowed to see, they were still charged with lying by IA. Keep in mind that even based on the evidence from IA, the Officer's cruisers were still so far away from the suspect vehicle that they would have been out of visual contact with it well before the crash even occurred. So really their exact position on the road was kind of trivial to the substance of the case itself.

This is a pretty dangerous standard to have for an investigation in the era of cameras being everywhere, including on our bodies. In this case the Investigator has all of the footage and evidence, but you're not allowed to see it. But if the answers you give to the questions solely from your recollection don't match up perfectly with what's on the video that you can't see, then you're branded a liar. This doesn't make sense. 

The IA Investigator goes on to claim in his report that Police Officers are special in that they should have the ability to perfectly recollect everything that occurs during "stressful" and "chaotic" incidents without error. This is simply and obviously untrue. Police Officers are regular people, we get tunnel vision when we're stressed, and sometimes the exact order of events gets crossed up. We've all been through the trainings where we saw Officers who were interviewed after critical incidents and incorrectly recollected how many shots they fired, or where exactly people were at a given moment, etc... Scientists have even studied this phenomenon in first responders specifically and found that even in those who are expected to handle it, stress still causes the impairment of memory.

So what's changed in the past year or so, have veteran EHPD Officers just gone nuts and decided to start lying about minor details en mass? I personally don't think so. You see, this sudden flip of a switch from Internal Affairs where everyone is suddenly lying, coincided with a change of personnel running the division, namely Lt. Joe Ficacelli, who is the lead IA investigator. His name has come up here before, where we mentioned how he himself was terminated from his former employer, the Hartford Police Department, while he was in the Academy after they found some "inconsistencies" in the information he provided during his background check surrounding his steroid use and car crashes (click here for story). Is he looking for some kind of redemption for his past by making these accusations against others? I don't know.

What I do know however, is that Lt. Ficacelli was asked about his past with Hartford back in December of 2020 while he was testifying under oath in a hearing before the State Labor Board. But when the Union attorney began asking him about what happened to result in his termination, according to the transcript Lt. Ficacelli stated that he was "vindicated" in civil court. He then went on claim that he believed he had signed a non-disclosure agreement with the City of Hartford that would preclude him from speaking about the matter in the hearing. The Hearing Officer then stated that if he was the subject of an NDA then he couldn't be required to answer the questions about his termination.

So naturally this piqued my curiosity, and we made a few phone calls to the Hartford Police Department and filed an FOI request. After some time they were able to dig up the agreement that Lt. Ficacelli had cited to get out of answering the questions during the hearing. Upon review of the document we found that the City did not admit to any wrongdoing in terminating Ficacelli, and even had it clearly written that they were only agreeing to the settlement to avoid paying further legal costs fighting his lawsuit. The City merely agreed to sponsor Ficacelli to attend the POST Academy on the explicit condition that once he completed his training, the City would NOT employ him as a Police Officer, and he'd have to seek employment elsewhere. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't describe signing an agreement that states you're not going to get a job from an employer who terminated you, as being "vindicated." 

Additionally, paragraph 5 of the settlement clearly states that while Ficacelli is not allowed to speak of the details of the agreement to the general public, he is allowed to discuss it if compelled by "compulsory process of law." Such as testifying under oath in an official proceeding before a body such as the State Labor Board. So he actually shouldn't have been allowed to refuse to testify, and mislead the Hearing Officer.

So using the standard that Lt. Ficacelli has applied to the people his office has investigated, wouldn't these inaccurate statements that he made, under oath, also qualify as lies? Perhaps he mis-spoke, or mis-remembered some of the details? Well that reasoning didn't seem to resonate with him when he was the one doing the investigating. What we know is that he hasn't been investigated, or even written up, so I guess it's not lying when he does it, just everyone else? Seems like a bit of a double standard.

Fringe Benefits

 Anyone who's worked Patrol over the past year or two knows that the EHPD fleet of vehicles is in pretty bad shape. While we have a few newer vehicles many of the older ones are in various states of disrepair and are constantly in and out of the shop for repairs due to break downs or crash damage. As a result many of the cars that are still on the road end up running 24/7 as the oncoming shift often has to call the outgoing shift in off the road to take their cars.

So, we were glad to see in some documents we received that we are budgeted to get 6 new cruisers, and one new K9 vehicle. The existing K9 cars are in especially bad condition, being Crown Victoria models that haven't been produced since the 2011 model year.

However it was pretty surprising to see this sentence in the document that after the patrol vehicles were purchased, "remaining monies to be utilized for purchasing a 2021 Chevy Tahoe LS for the Chief of Police." While East Hartford Police Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs have long gotten free take home cars as a fringe benefit, this purchase is surprising because Chief Sansom just recently got a 2020 Ford Explorer. So I wouldn't think that SUV is already so worn out that he needs to replace it with a brand new 2021 Tahoe with a $52,600 starting MSRP. And his Deputies are also currently driving relatively new Ford Explorers as well.

The other problem with this is that ever since Chief Sansom was hired, he has taken to purchasing non-Police package vehicles for himself and his Deputies, instead opting for more expensive, fancier civilian models. The previous Chief, Mark Sirois, would purchase a new vehicle for himself nearly annually, but his take home vehicle was usually a basic Police package fleet vehicle, the same as everyone else. That way when he got a new vehicle, his old one could simply be rotated into the fleet at no loss to the overall Department. With these civilian spec vehicles Chief Sansom opts to purchase however, there is very limited use for them after he's done with them since they can't be equipped for Patrol and aren't pursuit rated.

Chevrolet actually sells two models of Police specific Tahoes, a PPV and SSV, which can usually be had for less money than the civilian models, and come pre-wired for Police equipment like radios, computers, and lights. However these models usually come with a far more basic exterior appearance, and a stripped down interior devoid of higher end features, they prioritize function over form. On the civilian model the Chief is purchasing for himself, the Town will also have to pay extra to get it wired up on top of the already increased purchase price, further inflating the cost.

So what does any of this have to do with us? Well it comes back to a recurring theme on this blog, where the Town and their officials have consistently told us that they don't have money to afford things like training, equipment, raises, or better health insurance. But when the time comes to buy the Chief yet another new up-specced SUV or other Administrative want, suddenly the cash flows. They seem to be selectively broke when it's convenient for them, yet flush with cash when they want to be. So I thought I'd try to find a few things the Department could purchase with about $55,000 if the Chief could bear to drive his old 2020 Explorer for another year. 

For about $53,000 we could acquire another new K9 car. The three in use right now are relatively dilapidated, and only one currently appears to be budgeted to be replaced. 

For about $51,000 you could also purchase brand new ballistic vests for about half the Department. Manufacturers usually recommend replacement about every 5 years.

For just a few thousand dollars we could get all new, and a greater number of computers for the Patrol report writing room. Currently we don't even have enough computers for an entire squad to use them at the same time, and often times at least one isn't working. It's not uncommon to see Officers standing in the back of the room waiting their turn to use a computer, especially during the overlap period between shifts. 

In fact, for $55,000 you could even outfit about half of Patrol with brand new laptops (Or all of Patrol with refurbished). This way each Officer could have their own computer that they put in a docking station inside the car like many other Departments do instead of having desktops in the building and tablets permanently installed in the cars.

$55,000 can be used to pay for a good portion of the cost of a used armored vehicle for the SWAT team. They haven't had an armored car since the old one caught on fire while driving down Route 2 a several years back and have since resorted to driving around in what is effectively a box truck. A new armored truck would obviously make it much safer for our team members to operate in the field on volatile scenes.

$55,000 could also pay for about 957 hours of overtime so Officers and Detectives can do things like follow up on cases and respond to crime scenes. Or you put together crime prevention details to tackle the epidemic of auto thefts and car burglaries that seems to have no end in sight. Or you could just use it to pay for the overtime we're incurring every day due to being short staffed.

You could also use that money to pay for the necessary retraining we all now need to re-learn how to do our jobs without getting arrested under the new Police Accountability Act. This law has fundamentally changed how Policing works in Connecticut, yet we haven't really received any new training on what we're supposed to be doing differently now. This has left our members in limbo wondering what to do, and at risk of having their lives ruined by simply doing what they have been trained since day 1 of their careers.

Then of course there's the obvious, we could just buy another Patrol car... and have money left over.

I could keep going on, but I think the point is made. The priorities of the people in charge here are just backwards. A good manager would want to ensure that the people working on the front lines have the training and equipment they need to do their jobs effectively, and are well compensated before spending money that we supposedly don't have to buy unnecessary new family vehicles for themselves on the taxpayer's dime.

There will be a new Mayor coming into Office by the end of the year, hopefully whoever that ends up being will take a hard look at how the dollars are being spent at EHPD.