Meriden Police Gaynor IA reports by Record Journal

Internal Affairs Investigation

Class 1

Complainant:

Office of the Chief of Police

Allegations:

Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer

Allegations Against:

Captain Patrick Gaynor

Case Number:

NIA

Date of Incident:

September 2, 2016

Time of Incident:

n/a

Location of Incident:

50 W. Main Street, Meriden

Type of Incident:

Surreptitious Recording Policy Violation

Internal Affairs Investigation:

Class 1

I.A.17-12

I.A. 17-12

Background On April 18, 2017, I was contacted by City of Meriden Attorney Deborah L. Moore. Atty. Moore asked that I meet with her in person, on that same day, if possible. At approximately 1320 hours, the two of us met at her office in City Hall at 142 E. Main St. in Meriden. During this meeting, Atty. Moore explained to me that while she had been editing material as it would relate to a voluminous Freedom oflnformation Request, she had come across two audio files. Both of the audio files had been emailed from Captain Gaynor's work email, pgaynor@meridenct.gov, and sent to MPD0357@aol.com. It is worth noting that Captain Gaynor's badge number is 357. The email address roughly translates to Meriden Police Department badge number 357. The two audio files had already been named as follows: • •

Admin Leave Pick Up Medication From Vehicle.mfa

The "Admin Leave" file had been placed into a "drop box" account that was designated to expire on April 26, 2017. A "drop box" is designed for file sharing and the files within a "drop box" can be accessed by anyone that the originating account holder should so choose. Upon having played approximately 30 seconds of this file I was able to make an impromptu determination that the contents of the recording were that of a meeting that took place on September 2, 2016 in where Captain Gaynor had been placed on administrative leave. Upon having played approximately one minute of the "Pick Up Medication From Vehicle" file, I was able to discern the voices of Captain Gaynor and Deputy Chief of Police Timothy Topulos. I was not certain as to the specific context of either recording but am acutely aware of a Meriden Police Department Policy which limits the discretion of officers as it would· pertain to obtaining audio recordings of other department members. It appeared to me that these recordings may have been secretly obtained and without the knowledge of those whose voices had been captured on the recordings. In order to preserve these files, they were downloaded onto a memory device and provided to me for further review. At 1333 hours, I contacted Chief Jeffry Cossette and requested that he meet with Atty. Moore and I in her office at City Hall. As chance would have it, Chief Cossette was scheduled for a 1400 hour meeting at City Hall and would be able to meet within 15 minutes of my request. Chief Cossette was then briefed on what I believed to be evidence of a Meriden Police Department Policy violation. Before making a decision as how to proceed, Chief Cossette asked me to listen lo the recordings more intently. Later that same afternoon, upon having received a more detailed assessment, Chief Cossette ordered me to initiate two internal affairs investigations into the conduct of Captain Gaynor as it would relate to two recordings that seemed to be surreptitiously obtained on two separate occasions. The two case numbers are IA Case # 17-12 and IA Case # 17-13. 2

Investigation Content of the "Admin Leave" Recording On April 18, 2017, I listened to the audio file titled "Admin Leave." Although the recorder has been activated, there is not any conversation at the onset of the recording. The recorder sounds as if it is in a pocket while the carrier is walking. The first voice that can be identified is that of Shawn-Louise Tompkins, the Administrative Assistant to Chief of Police Jeffry Cossette (Recording, Adm in Leave, 01: 15). Approximately one minute later, the voice of Cpt. Gaynor can be heard greeting Tompkins. The two exchange pleasantries just before Tompkins departs the area. After a pause in conversation, the voice of Detective John Williams can be heard greeting Cpl. Gaynor. The two discuss the manner in which they were summoned to Chief Cossette's office for a noon meeting. Detective Williams is also the Meriden Police Officers' Union President. The voice of Sergeant John Mennone can also be heard explaining to Cpt. Gaynor where he was when he was summoned to ChiefCossette's office. Sgt. John Mennone is also the Meriden Police Officers' Union Vice-President (Recording, Admin Leave, 04:04 - 04:36). The conversation is interrupted by Deputy Chief of Police Timothy Topulos who asks both Williams and Mennone to join him, and the Chief, in the Chief's office (Recording, Admin Leave, 04:39). At this point in the recording, it is clear that Cpt. Gaynor's voice is the prominent and consistent voice who is most likely responsible for actually recording the conversations. While Williams and Mennone have gone into Chief Cossette's office it seems as though Cpt. Gaynor is left to wait in the seating area just outside of Chief Cossette's office.

Cpt. Gaynor is jofoed by Sergeant George DelMastro (since promoted to the rank Lieutenant). The two exchange pleasantries and talk for only a moment before Cpl. Gaynor is summoned into Chief Cassette's ofiice by DC Topulos (Recording, Admin Leave, 07:34). Once inside of Chief Cosette's office, the voice of Chief Cossette can be heard explaining to Cpl. Gaynor that he is being placed on administrative leave while an investigation into his actions would be conducted by Detective Lieutenant Mark Walerysiak (since promoted to the rank of Deputy Chief of Police). Cpl. Gaynor was farther instructed to surrender a number of items to include his weapon (Recording, Admin Leave, 07:58 - 10:00). I am aware that Cpt. Gaynor was placed on administrative leave on September 2, 2016 while an investigation conducted by DC Walerysiak was completed (IA 16-27). Given the consistency of the recording's content with Cpt. Gaynor's placement on administrative leave, along with the title of the audio file, I can deduce that the recording was obtained on September 2, 2016 at approximately 1200 hours in ChiefCossette's office within the police department.

The recorder continues to record as Cpt. Gaynor is escorted to his offices by DC Topulos, Det. Williams, and Sgt. Mennone. During that time and while within the building, the following voices can be heard on the recording: • • •

Susan Martel - Records Divsion Doree Price - Director of Emergency Communications Censio Ramos - Dispatch Supervisor

Once Cpt. Gaynor, DC Topulos, Sgt. Mennone, and Det. Williams exit the building, they are encountered by Officer Eric Shean and Officer Jeremiah Scully who can both be heard on the recording. Eventually, Cpl. Gaynor can be heard having a conversation with Sgt. Mennone as the two drive to City Hall where they part ways. Cpt. Gaynor is then heard talking on the phone when the recording is finally terminated. In total, not including Cpt. Gaynor, eleven different members of the department staff are recorded. Throughout the entire recording, although Cpt. Gaynor was displeased with the course of events, I did not find that anyone else was overtly rude or discourteous. Interview with Captain Patrick Gaynor

On May 4, 2017, I met with Cpt. Gaynor in the Internal Affairs Office. Captain Gaynor was accompanied by Union Representative John Wagner as well as Attorney Daniel Esposito. Before we began the interview Cpt. Gaynor was provided with a "Garity Notice" which he signed. The interview was recorded and archived with this internal affairs case file under "Gaynor Interview". Captain Gaynor was informed that our single interview was in regard to IA Case# 17-12 and IA Case# 17-13. When asked whether or not he had ever surreptitiously recorded any member of the police department, Cpt. Gaynor responded, "Uh, I did, uh, record two meetings, um. Yes" (Recording, Gaynor Interview, 01 :54 - 02:05). In response as to when those meetings were, Cpt. Gaynor responded that one had been on September 2, 2016. He was not positive of the second date but was able to say that it was in the month of September (further explained in IA Case# 17-13). In response to the question as to why he recorded the meeting (in which he was placed on leave), Cpt. Gaynor stated, "Uh, I recorded the meeting becanse I believed that, uh, I was going to be retaliated against by the Chief's Office and, uh, I don't believe that, I think that, uh, I wanted to preserve a record of what happened because I don't think that, uh, the honest, uh, version of what happened was going to be supported by anybody else in that meeting (Recording, Gaynor Interview, 02:31 - 03:04).

Captain Gaynor acknowledged that he did not receive permission to surreptitiously record the meeting. According to him, he did not have anybody to get permission from. He felt that, "the, uh, the, uh, individual that was doing the retaliatory conduct was the Chief of Police so, I mean, obviously he is not going to give me permission (Recording, Gaynor Interview, 03: 18 - 03:26). When asked whether or not he was familiar with our (Meriden Police Department) Recording Device Policy, Cpt. Gaynor stated that he remembered when it came out. To the best of his recollection, the Chief of Police was the only person that could grant authorization to record. I asked Cpt. Gaynor whether or not he recognized his actions as having been a policy violation to which he responded, "I was aware that the policy, yes, I was aware there was a policy against surreptitious recording, um, my intent wasn't to, to sneak around and surreptitiously record people in the locker room or anything of that nature. It was to record the events as they transpired in that particular meeting and, uh, to preserve what was going on in that meeting (Recording, Gaynor Interview, 04: 17 - 04:44) I asked Cpt. Gaynor, a second and third time, whether or not he recognized his actions as having been a policy violation to which he would say, "I recognize that there is a policy and that I recorded that day and you need to get the Chiefs permission, yes. The problem that I have is I can't seek the Chiefs permission to record that particular meeting. Because he was involved in the meeting (Recording, Gaynor Interview, 05:00 - 05:22). Cpt. Gaynor stated that he used his cell phone to record the meeting and conversations. According to Cpt. Gaynor, he still possessed a copy of that recording. Cpl. Gaynor would provide me a copy of this recording on May 9, 2017. The recording I received from Cpt. Gaynor is consistent with the recording I received from Atty. Moore. A transcription of the recording was completed and will be maintained within this case file. I pointed out to Captain Gaynor that he seemed to find reasoning as to why it may be permissible for him to violate department policy. I asked Captain Gaynor, given his position in the department, whether or not it would be alright for anybody else to violate the recording device policy. Captain Gaynor responded, "I would say that they should be following the, the, policy but obviously there is no caveat to bypass the Chief of Police ifthat's ... in a situation such as mine. Where I'm required to get a court order or get the permission of the Chief of Police to, um ... " Relative Interviews 5

The following people were also interviewed relative to the audio recording titled "Admin Leave

• • • • • • • • • • •

Administrative Assistant Shawn Tompkins Deputy Chief Timothy Topulos Detective John Williams (Police Union President) Sergeant John Mennone (Police Union Vice-President) Lt. George DelMastro Chief Jeffry Cossette Records Professional Susan Martel Emergency Communications Director Doree Price Dispatch Supervisor Censio Ramos (Dispatcher Union President) Officer Eric Shean Officer Jeremiah Scully

Each person interviewed was provided with a "Garity Notice" which they signed. Each interview was recorded and archived within this Internal Affairs case file. Considering his supervisory and authoritative status as it would pertain to the permissiveness of surreptitious recording, Chief Cossette stated that he had not given Cpt. Gaynor permission to record the meeting in where Cpt. Gaynor was placed on administrative leave nor was he aware that Cpt. Gaynor was recording the meeting. At no time during any of the interviews did any of the interviewees indicate that they were aware that Cpt. Gaynor had been recording them. The Director of Emergency Communications, Doree Price, took particular exception once she learned that Cpt. Gaynor had secretly recorded her voice. According to her she has worked in the public safety realm, and with various police departments, for almost 30 years. In that time she has never been recorded without having known. She was appalled that Cpt. Gaynor would do such a thing. She finds that type of conduct to be underhanded and deceitful; it is not trustworthy or transparent at all. Having recorded her without permission is something that personally offended Price to which she has no appreciation for and is disgusted by.

Policy

The Meriden Police Department does have a policy that governs the use of recording devices (General Order 1.2.31, Portable Recording Devices) and the manner in which they are to be used. Considering the brevity of the policy, the entire policy is as follows: This order consists of the following sections:

1.2.31.1 SURREPTITIOUS USE OF AUDIO RECORDERS 1.2.31.2 PROHIBITED USE OF PORTABLE RECORDERS PURPOSE: To establish a written directive, which provides guidelines for the use of portable audio and video recording devices by members of the Department while in the performance of their duties. POLICY: The Meriden Police Department may provide members with access to portable recorders, either audio or video or both, for use during the performance of their duties. The use ofrecorders is intended to enhance the mission of the Department by accurately capturing contacts between members of the Department and the public. All recordings made by personnel acting in their official capacity as members of this department shall remain the property of the Depmiment and should not be considered private, regardless of whether those recordings were made with department-issued or personally-owned recorders. DISCUSSION: The intent of this policy is to promote an atmosphere that is professional and transparent, and a code of conduct that places ethics above all else. The policy is intended to promote a positive and cooperative work environment for all. The improper or surreptitious use of a po1iable recorded between employees, or between employees and the public, can be corrosive and detrimental to the workforce and undermine public's trust and confidence in law enforcement. PROCEDURE: 1.2.31.1 SURREPTITIOUS USE OF THE AUDIO RECORDER Members shall not surreptitiously record another department member without a court order or authorization of the Chief of Police.

1.2.31.2 PROHIBITED USE OF PORTABLE RECORDERS Employees of the Meriden Police Department are prohibited from using departmentissued portable recorders and recording media for personal use and are prohibited from making personal copies of recordings created while on-duty, or while acting in their official capacity. Employees of the Meriden Police Department are also prohibited from retaining recordings of activities or information obtained while on-duty, whether the recording was created with department-issued or personally-owned recording devices. Employees of the Meriden Police Department shall not duplicate or distribute such recordings, except for authorized legitimate department business purposes. All such recordings shall be retained at the Department.

Employees of the Meriden Police Department are prohibited from using personallyowned recording devices while on-duty without the express consent of the Chief of Police. Any member who uses a personally-owned recorder for department-related activities shall comply with the provisions of this policy. Recordings shall not be used by any member of this depmiment for the purpose of embarrassment or ridicule.

Summary Captain Gaynor's control over the professional and personal email accounts to which the audio file "Admin Leave" had been sent/received, along with Cpt. Gaynor's admission, leave no doubt that Cpt. Gaynor created and maintained this particular recording. The content of the recording which entails the meeting in where Cpt. Gaynor was placed on administrative leave, along with the events immediately thereafter, are significant indicators that Cpt. Gaynor was on duty at the time he created the recording. Irrespectively, the recording was obtained without the knowledge of anyone else who had been recorded by Cpt. Gaynor, and without the permission from the only two authorities that could have granted Cpt. Gaynor permission; by court order or the Chief of Police (General Order 1.2.31, subsection 1). Cpt. Gaynor claims that, given his concerns of retaliatory conduct, he had no recourse in allowing him to obtain such a recording and did not trust that the other four people in the room would have honestly and truthfully recalled the content of the Sept 2, 2016 meeting. I find flaw in this rationale. Cpt. Gaynor could have asked for permission to record the meeting but to do so would not have been surreptitious in nature, clearly an aspect of the recording that Cpt. Gaynor wished to maintain. Similarly, Cpt. Gaynor expressed that his intent was not to "sneak around and surreptitiously record people in the locker room or anything of that nature." However, regardless of his intentions, he did record people that he could not have anticipated on encountering before, during, and after his meeting with Chief Cossette. He could have elected to terminate the recording after his meeting with Chief Cossette but instead allowed it to record for approximately 30 more minutes. Therefore, I find that there exists, by preponderance of the evidence, sufficient proof to reasonably conclude that Cpt. Gaynor did surreptitiously record members of the police department and ancillary stafC which may be a violation of Meriden Police Department General Order 1.2.31, Portable Recording Devices and/or Standards of Conduct:

Insubordination: Members shall willfully observe and obey all lawful verbal and written rules, duties, policies, procedures and practices of the Meriden Police Department.

Respectfully Submitted,

~he:2?4t1/ Sergeant, Internal Affairs

Internal Affairs Investigation

Class 1

Complainant:

Office of the Chief of Police

Allegations:

Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer

Allegations Against:

Captain Patrick Gaynor

Case Number:

NIA

Date of Incident:

September 2, 2016

Time of Incident:

n/a

Location of Incident:

50 W. Main Street, Meriden

Type of Incident:

Surreptitious Recording Policy Violation

Internal Affairs Investigation:

Class 1

I.A. 17-13

'·

Background On April 18, 2017, I was contacted by City of Meriden Attorney Deborah L Moore. Atty. Moore asked that I meet with her in person, on that same day, if possible. At approximately 1320 hours, the two of us met at her office in City Hall at 142 E Main St. in Meriden. During this meeting, Atty. Moore explained to me that while she had been editing material as it would relate to a voluminous Freedom oflnformation Request, she had come across two audio files. Both of the audio files had been emailed from Captain Gaynor's work email, pgaynor@meridenct.gov, and sent to MPD0357@aol.com. It is worth noting that Captain Gaynor's badge number is 357. The email address roughly translates to Meriden Police Department badge number 357. The two audio files had already been named as follows: • •

Admin Leave Pick Up Medication From Vehicle

The "Admin Leave" file had been placed into a "drop box" account that was designated to expire on April 26, 2017. A "drop box" is designed for file sharing and the files within a "drop box" can be accessed by anyone that the originating account holder should so choose. Upon having played approximately 30 seconds of this file I was able to make an impromptu determination that the contents of the recording were that of a meeting that took place on September 2, 2016 in where Captain Gaynor had been placed on administrative leave. Upon having played approximately one minute of the "Pick Up Medication From Vehicle" file, I was able to discern the voices of Captain Gaynor and Deputy Chief of Police Timothy Topulos. I was not certain as to the specific context of either recording but am acutely aware of a Meriden Police Department Policy which limits the discretion of officers as it would pertain to obtaining audio recordings of other department members. It appeared to me that these recordings may have been secretly obtained and without the knowledge of those whose voices had been captured on the recordings. In order to preserve these files, they were downloaded onto a memory device and provided to me for further review. At 1333 hours, I contacted Chief Jeffry Cossette and requested that he meet with Atty. Moore and I in her office at City Hall. As chance would have it, Chief Cossette was scheduled for a 1400 hour meeting at City Hall and would be able to meet within 15 minutes of my request. Chief Cossette was then briefed on what I believed to be evidence of a Meriden Police Department Policy violation. Before making a decision as how to proceed, Chief Cossette asked me to listen to the recordings more intently. Later that same afternoon, upon having received a more detailed assessment, Chief Cossette ordered me to initiate two internal affairs investigations into the conduct of Captain Gaynor as it would relate to two recordings that seemed to be surreptitiously obtained on two separate occasions. The two case numbers are IA Case# 17-12 and IA Case# 17-13. 2

This investigation will concentrate on the recording I learned to have taken place on September 6, 2016 and titled Pick up Medication From Vehicle. The other recording (Admin Leave) has been investigated and documented under Internal Affairs Case #17-12

Investigation

On April 18, 2017, I listened to the audio file titled "Pick Up Medication From Vehicle." Although the recorder has been activated, there is not any conversation at the onset of the recording. What can be heard is the operation of a motor vehicle and the vibration of a phone. The first voice that can be identified is that of Captain Patrick Gaynor who is apparently talking to himself(Recording, Pick up Medication From Vehicle, 0:40). After approximately 30 seconds, it sounds as if Cpt. Gaynor exits his vehicle. He then greets someone. The other voice greets him back. Once the two begin to engage in more conversation I can say with ce1iainty that it is the voice of Deputy Chief Timothy Topulos (Recording, Pick Up Medication From Vehicle, 0 I: 17). Cpt. Gaynor can be heard telling DC Topulos that he has to retrieve a few items. He goes on to talk about the stress he is under, the humiliation that he feels, and his sentiment/ belief that (Meriden) taxpayers will not be happy about the cost (to the city). At this point in the recording, it is clear tlmt Cpt. Gaynor's voice is the prominent and consistent voice who is most likely responsible for actually recording the conversation.

It seems as though Cpt. Gaynor was able to gather whatever belongings he wished to retrieve at the 02:22 minute mark of the recording. DC Topulos cordially offers Cpt. Gaynor assistance should he (Cpt. Gaynor) need anything and then says that he will see Cpl. Gaynor the next day at a labor board hearing. Through the course of Internal Affairs Case # 16-42, I have come to learn that the Meriden Police Union grieved the removal of Cpt. Gaynor's position as the "Snow Tow Coordinator". The hearing for this grievance was scheduled for September 7, 2016; a meeting that I know to have been attended by both DC Topulos and Cpt. Gaynor. The two begin to talk about Cpt. Gaynor's mode of transportation which led thein to the topic of Cpt. Gaynor's wife, Officer Jennifer Pierce. Incidentally, she had just suffered an injury at work and was currently seeking treatment. In having reviewed a first report of injury report filed by Ofc. Pierce, she reported to have been injured at 1353 hours on 09/06/16. The "description of problem" field states that she hurt her knee, hand, and wrist, while walking on a 3

wet floor. This is consistent with the content of the conversation between Cpt. Gaynor and DC Topulos. This portion of the conversation significantly aids in determining the date and time of their conversation and when the potential violation of policy may have occurred. Cpl. Gaynor goes on to speak about his displeasure in which he no longer has a department vehicle at his disposal; a point which Cpl. Gaynor believes the City should reimburse him for any out of pocket expense. He also comments on his loss of overtime. DC Topulos tries to offer him clarity on the matter as well as some encouraging words and advice concerning Cpt. Gaynor's current predicament (administrative leave status) and how to file additional complaints against the Chief of Police (Recording, Pick up Medication From Vehicle, 03: I 6 - 04: 18) The next few minutes of conversation set the tone of Cpl. Gaynor's displeasure with the Chief of Police. Although the entire transcription of this particular recording is available with this case file, as is the recording, the following is an excerpt from the transcription from the 04:18 minute mark to the 08:34 minute mark. PG:

Oh, no. I'm not gonna take him to ... l'm gonna file them, uh, the same course of business of filing a complaint.

TT:

Well, HEY.

PG:

And you'll have to forward them to the city manager. And then he is not gonna be here though. The chief is not gonna be here much longer. He's not.

TT:

Where is, where is he going?

PG:

Uh, he's gonna either retire, or he's gonna be on administrative leave. And, and I've sat eating shit sandwiches for a long time, and so has everyone else. But I'm clone eating them. And now all this shit about how DARE is cancelled ... I shared that with people. And I don't care ifhe gets mad about that or not. The retaliation includes a whole bunch of people in this building. And he's gonna pay for that, you know? Our retaliatory conduct poly .. is pretty, policy is pretty stringent on that. And you're supposed to ... ! mean, my discussions with people and, and my own attorney is this is the kind of example that happens when you retaliate and you speak up. This is a great of example, what happened to me. Here is an IA letter. Okay. I'm gonna file a complaint about retaliation. The next day, oh, get in the chiefs office. Oh, you're stripped. Get out of here. And you expect people to come forward? They're not going to.

TT:

Obviously, obviously, I'm not gonna talk about it. There is a process. Okay? You know, uh, it's not, it's ...

PG:

Well, you know what the process is.

TT:

It's not, it's not personal.

PG:

Here is your process for me. Hey, what happened here? I told JERRY before I even put that slip in, when I put this in, when I was the director of communications, Caroline knew all about it. It was my budget. I was told that I would be the department head. That's what they kept on saying. I went to department head meetings. I didn't run anything through the chief. I had the approval authority on, on the NaviLine system and on the P card. It didn't go through him. I signed off on everything. I've wanted to go to this class for years.

TT:

I know.

PG:

It's been denied repeatedly. This is an opportunity for an advanced management class. At the time, I thought I was getting that job. When I realized obviously when, well when it was announced that I wasn't getting INAUDIBLE ...

TT:

Well, we all thought...

PG:

... I wasn't get ... well ...

TT:

... you were getting that job.

PG:

We all did. And, and I thought I was gonna get that class. It didn't even start yet by the way. It starts on September !2'11 â&#x20AC;˘ Um, I told Jerry if the chief doesn't agree to pay for it, there's two things that can happen. I'm gonna either put it on my personal credit card so that I can go the class, or tell Doree that you're getting docked 800 bucks, 'cause there's a cancellation policy. I didn't want that to happen. I talked to Doree. I talked to Caroline about this. So the ...

TT:

UI-11-IUH.

PG:

... the notion that I'm trying to steal money for personal benefit is, uh, preposterous.

TT:

Okay. Well, you have your defense.

PG:

Yeah.

TT: You have your defense. So ... and as I said, there's a forum for that. And where it takes us, it takes us. PG:

Well, I want to get back to work. The average of overtime ...

TT:

And as soo- ...

PG:

... is not acceptable to me.

TT:

As ... uh, I understand. I understand the position you're in.

PG:

Okay.

TT:

And he is working on it. Your lights are on.

PG:

I just opened the door.

TT:

Okay. Uh, he's working ... and as soon as he's ready for you, we'll bring you in.

PG:

Uh, he told me Thursday the 15 th . I had to get my other. ..

TT:

Okay.

PG:

... attorney ready.

TT:

Okay. Okay. And we'll go from there.

PG:

I have a meeting with Guy on Friday. Um ...

TT:

What guy?

PG:

Guy Scaife the, uh, city manager.

TT:

Oh, okay.

PG:

I am very excited about that.

TT:

Okay.

PG:

Can't wait to get in there.

TT:

Pat, wherever it takes us, it takes us. I, I just, uh ...

PG: I, I have a pretty good idea where it's gonna take us, pretty good. The gravy train is gonna be over. Running amuck, doing whatever we want, treating people wrong, not giving a shit about the PD or other people in this town, it's all gonna be over. And the retaliation is gonna be over too. TT:

Well...

PG: And that's not the end of it. The same thing that I told to Bill Abbatematteo I'm gonna tell to Jeff Cossette. Pack your shit, 'cause I'm gonna own that house. You don't get to treat me like this. I didn't do anything wrong to deserve this. And I'm gonna go after him personally and professionally. I mean, I mean, this is absolutely preposterous. It's, it's, it's outrageous. Look at the front page of the paper. The news media is all over the place. I can't get another job if my life depended on it right now because of the way he worded that letter and the allegation that he made. 6

TT:

It's an allegation, Pat.

PG:

Well ...

TT:

It's an allegation. (Recording, Pick up Medication From Vehicle, 04: 18 - 08:34)

This particular part of their conversation had been referenced by DC Topulos in Internal Affairs Case # 16-42 (page 68). DC Topulos cited this moment, and nearly verbatim comments made by Cpt. Gaynor, as fmiher proof of Cpt. Gaynor's lack of disregard to the department's chain of command. Cpt. Gaynor would go on to express the frequency in which "people" at City Hall place purchases on the "P Card" (presumably personal purchases) and reimburse the City at a later date. He, however, explains the way in which he personally paid a vendor for their services; out of his own pocket. Shortly thereafter, DC Topulos and Cpt. Gaynor bid each other goodbye and part ways. Audible alerts (beeping) from a motor vehicle can be heard before the recording is terminated. The total length of the recording is 10 minutes and 13 seconds.

Interview with Captain Patrick Gaynor

On May 4, 2017, I met with Cpt. Gaynor in the Internal Affairs Office. Captain Gaynor was accompanied by Union Representative John Wagner as well as Attorney Daniel Esposito. Before we began the interview Cpt. Gaynor was provided with a "Garity Notice" which he signed. The interview was recorded and archived with this internal affairs case file under "Gaynor Interview". Captain Gaynor was informed that our single interview was in regard to IA Case# 17-12 and IA Case# 17-13. When asked whether or not he had ever surreptitiously recorded any member of the police department, Cpt. Gaynor responded, "Uh, I did, uh, record two meetings, um. Yes" (Recording, Gaynor Interview, 0 I :54 - 02:05). In response as to when those meetings were, Cpl. Gaynor responded that one had been on September 2, 2016. He was not positive of the second date but was able to say that it was in the month of September and a time when he came to the police department to "pick up something." When asked whether or not he was familiar with our (Meriden Police Depatiment) Recording Device Policy; Cpt. Gaynor stated that he remembered when it came out. To the best

of his recollection, the Chief of Police was the only person that could grant authorization to record. When asked who he had recorded during the interaction in where he retrieved personal items, Cpt. Gaynor responded, "myself and the Deputy Chief" but could not recall who exactly was there. When asked whether or not he had permission to record the Deputy Chief (Topulos), Cpt. Gaynor responded, "No". When asked whether or not he had recognized recording Deputy Chief Topulos as being a violation of the recording device policy, Cpt. Gaynor responded, "Yes." In response as to why he would record Deputy ChiefTopulos in violation of the recording device policy, Cpt. Gaynor responded:

"It was the totality of all the circumstances that, um, I explained during the, uh, investigation that this retaliatory conduct has been going on for some time ... and .. .that the Deputy Chief is in a position where he is not able to do anything about it, um, because he's bu... , he is the number two under the Chiet: as well, and, uh, he's powerless as he has expl.. .. expressed to me. He can't do anything about it. Um, he can't bring up the issues that he has, that he agreed with me upon. Several, um, issues over the past, uh, couple of years with the retaliatory conduct and, um. That's about it" (Recording, Gaynor Interview, 07:39 - 08:39) I pointed out to Captain Gaynor that he seemed to find reasoning as to why it may be permissible for him to violate department policy. I asked Captain Gaynor, given his position in the department, whether or not it would be alright for anybody else to violate the recording device policy. Captain Gaynor responded, "I would say that they should be following the, the, policy but obviously there is no caveat to bypass the Chief of Police if that's .. .in a situation such as mine. Where I'm required to get a court order or get the permission of the Chief of Police to, um ... " NOTE: The interview of Cpt. Gaynor was done in a fashion where one interview would pertain to both Internal Affair Cases 17-12 & 17-13. Therefore, some of his answers reference the content within IA Case 17-12. The content of his remarks are just as relevant to this case and not considered mutually exclusive.

Cpt. Gaynor stated that he had made arrangements, by either text or email, with the Deputy Chief to pick up his personal items. I pointed out to Cpt. Gaynor that he did not have any reason to believe that the Chief was going to be there to which Cpt. Gaynor responded, "I wasn't sure who would be there. I just knew that I had made arrangements with the Deputy Chief to pick up some, um, medications that I had left and some other items that I had left behind. Yes" (Recording, Gaynor Interview, 10:03 - 10:17). 8

I reminded Cpt. Gaynor of a section in IA Case # 16-42 in where DC Topulos reported Cpt. Gaynor as having made antagonistic remarks toward the Chief of Police and asked if it was during this meeting with DC Topulos that he made these remarks. Captain Gaynor was not sure if it was during this meeting or another time when he had to pick up items from DC Topulos. When I asked if it was something that he had said or along those lines, Cpt. Gaynor responded, "Well, it's completely out of context. What I said is in reference to what I told the former Chiet: Chief Abbatematteo, is that his actions were outside of his employment as the Chief of Police and they were more personal in nature and I would be, uh, pursuing legal action against him personally and, um, suing him personally (Recording, Gaynor Interview, 12:03 - 12:24)". "The comment that I made to, uh, to the Deputy Chief was a ref.. was a recitation of what I had told to the former chief that he is aware of. That the Deputy Chief is aware of and so is the Chiet: the current Chief. The former Chief, Bill Abbatematteo, um, was taking, um, some action, and I told him that I would be seeking, um, legal counsel and be suing him personally. Not just through the department and, uh, that I would be owning his house, he could pack his stuff and move out of the house 'cause I'm going to be moving into the house. His personal residence, it's... In the internal affairs report, it's, uh, taken out of context and misquoted that I said that I was going to tell the Chief to get the shit out of this PD. It had nothing to do with the PD. It was reference to the personal, ah, nature of this entire matter and it's beyond professional stuff. I would be suing him personally, yes. (Recording, Gaynor Interview, 12:26 - 13:39). I asked Cpt. Gaynor ifhe had made that explicitly clear (to DC Topulos), the way he had just made that point explicitly clear to me. The dialogue continued as follows: PG:

Uh, the way that I said it to him?

CF:

Yeah.

PG:

Yes, given that he was aware that I had said it to the former Chief, the same thing, yes (Recording, Gaynor Interview, 13:47 - 13:54).

CF:

Okay. And you still..

PG:

He was aware of a number of people that worked here, back at that time in 2004, were aware of that and ...

CF:

Did you sue the former Chief personally?

PG:

Uh, no. The next day, um, he contacted the Personnel Director and wanted to reverse course on, um, what he was doing with regards to, uh, Chief's points on the Sergeant's

Exam. The next day he contacted the Personnel Director so, no, I did not sue the, ah, former Chief But, I did tell him that up at the Lion's Club picnic. CF:

Okay

PG:

And, the Chief, the current Chief and the current Deputy Chief are aware that I told him that.

Cpt. Gaynor stated that he used his cell phone to record the meeting and conversations. According to Cpt. Gaynor, he still possessed a copy of this recording. Cpt. Gaynor would provide me a copy of this recording on May 9, 2017. The recording I received from Cpt. Gaynor is consistent with the recording I received from Atty. Moore. A transcription of the recording was completed and will be maintained within this case file.

Interview with Chief Jeffry Cossette

On May 9, 2017 I met with Chief Cossette in his office at the Meriden Police Department. Before we began the interview, Chief Cossette was provided with a "Garity Notice" which he signed. The interview was recorded and archived with this internal affairs case file under "Chief Cossette". Chief Cossette was informed that our single interview was in regard to IA Case # 17-12 and IA Case # 17-13. Considering his supervisory and authoritative status as it would pertain to the permissiveness of surreptitious recording, Chief Cossette stated that he had not given Cpt. Gaynor permission to record the meeting between Cpt. Gaynor and Deputy ChiefTopulos nor was he aware that Cpt. Gaynor had recorded the meeting.

Interview with Deputy Chief Timothy Topulos

On April 27 and May 22, 2017, I interviewed Deputy ChiefTopulos at the Meriden Police Department. Before we began each interview, Deputy ChiefTopulos was provided with a "Garity Notice" which he signed. The interviewed was recorded and archived with the internal affairs case file under "Deputy ChiefTopulos l" and "Deputy ChiefTopulos 2" accordingly. DC Topulos provided me with an email an exchange between his work email and that of mpd0357@aol.com; Patrick Gaynor. The initial thread was from Cpt. Gaynor dated 9/5/16 at 1752 hours. Specifically, Cpt. Gaynor writes: 10

"I also have a prescription medication which was left in my department issued vehicle. I forgot to get this medication due to the emotional shock of being put on admin leave for reporting misconduct. I would like to obtain the medication as soon as possible and would also like to give my attorney advance notice as to when the interview will be" (Email, Re: Retaliatory Admin Leave, 9/5/16) Deputy ChiefTopulos responded in part, "As far as your medication, I can meet you in the back lot at a time convenient for me and you, unless you have another suggestion" (Email, Re: Retaliatory Admin Leave, 9/5/16). DC Topulos stated that he did not give Cpt. Gaynor permission to record their conversation nor was he aware that Cpt. Gaynor recorded their conversation on September 6, 2017. Not only does DC Topulos find this a policy violation but a significant breach of trust. I explained to DC Topulos the way in which Cpt. Gaynor characterized the comment he made in reference to Chief Cossette "packing his belongings" and asked whether or not he interpreted the comments in the manner which Cpt. Gaynor thought he (DC Topulos) had perceived them (Recording, Deputy Chief Topulos, I :07 - 3: 12). DC Topulos responded: "It ce1iainly was not characterized that way. What I'm trying to say is that, urn, he was angry. You could tell from the tone in his voice, from the scowl on his face that, uh, he was very upset and angry at our Chief and, uh, he specifically told me, to my recollection, that, uh, this Chief, our Chief, Chief Cossette was, in so many words, going to suffer the same fate, uh, that Chief Abbatematteo suffered. Now the exact wording of course I don't recall but, uh, believe me, uh, the way in which Pat said it, if you could have been there and seen the look on his face, heard the tone in his voice, uh, the scowl on his face, uh, it was very clear to me that this was directed at Chief Cossette. And, urn, that he was very angry with him and that, uh, he was going to suffer some kind of consequence at Pat's hands as a result of the actions that he, uh, he, he was facing, ah, in terms of the internal investigation and the allegations made by the Chief (Recording, Deputy Chief Topulos, 3:30 - 4:47).

Deputy ChiefTopulos would continue to state, "His comments weren't a, uh, as you said 'a recitation of what he had said to Abbatematteo.' This was clearly directed at Chief Cossette" (Recording, Deputy ChiefTopulos, 4:55 - 5:04).

Policy

1.2.31.1 SURREPTITIOUS USE OF AUDIO RECORDERS 1.2.31.2 PROHIBITED USE OF PORT ABLE RECORDERS PURPOSE: To establish a written directive, which provides guidelines for the use of portable audio and video recording devices by members of the Department while in the performance of their duties. POLICY: The Meriden Police Department may provide members with access to portable recorders, either audio or video or both, for use during the performance of their duties. The use of recorders is intended to enhance the mission of the Department by accurately capturing contacts between members of the Depaiiment and the public. All recordings made by personnel acting in their official capacity as members of this department shall remain the property of the Department and should not be considered private, regardless of whether those recordings were made with department-issued or personally-owned recorders. DISCUSSION: The intent of this policy is to promote an atmosphere that is professional and transparent, and a code of conduct that places ethics above all else. The policy is intended to promote a positive and cooperative work environment for all. The improper or surreptitious use of a portable recorded between employees, or between employees and the public, can be corrosive and detrimental to the workforce and undermine public's trust and confidence in law enforcement. PROCEDURE: 1.2.31.1 SURREPTITIOUS USE OF THE AUDIO RECORDER

Members shall not surreptitiously record another department member without a court order or authorization of the Chief of Police. 1.2.31.2 PROHIBITED USE OF PORTABLE RECORDERS

Employees of the Meriden Police Depmtment are prohibited from using departmentissued p01iable recorders and recording media for personal use and are prohibited from making personal copies of recordings created while on-duty, or while acting in their official capacity. 12

Employees of the Meriden Police Department are also prohibited from retaining recordings of activities or information obtained while on-duty, whether the recording was created with department-issued or personally-owned recording devices. Employees of the Meriden Police Department shall not duplicate or distribute such recordings, except for authorized legitimate department business purposes. All such recordings shall be retained at the Department. Employees of the Meriden Police Department are prohibited from using personallyowned recording devices while on-duty without the express consent of the Chief of Police. Any member who uses a personally-owned recorder for department-related activities shall comply with the provisions of this policy. Recordings shall not be used by any member of this department for the purpose of. embarrassment or ridicule.

The Meriden Police Depaiiment also has a policy that governs the behavior and conduct of its members (MPD General Order 1.2.31B, Standards of Conduct). Excerpts from that policy are outlined below.

POLICY: It is the policy of the Meriden Police Department to institute and use a discip/ina,y system designed to achieve ils pwpose primarily through training and counseling. Any disciplinary actions will be administered on a.fair and consistent basis, commensurate with the circumstances of the offense or violaiion. fl is also the policy of the Meriden Police Department that swom members conduct themselves at all times i11 a ma1111er that reflects the ethical standards consistent with the rules co11tai11ed in this policy and otherwise disseminated by this agency.

DISCUSSION: This General Order deals Âˇwith disciplina,y rules and regulations and incorporates the positive, corrective, and punitive aspects o.fdiscipline. The main o~jective of any disciplina,y system is to rei11force positive behavior and achieve acceptable levels of pe1formance and adherence to standards of conduct and appearance. When problems are caused by an employee's unwillingness or inability to pe1:fbrm to Departmental standards and/or accept responsibility.fbr his/her actions, ii becomes a disciplina,y matter.

As mentioned above, no code of conducl can be devised so as to provide a 5pec/fic formula to address every conceivable circumstance encountered by law enforcement. Nevertheless, it is expected that these standards (){conduct are si1fficiently comprehensive to incorporate the obligations and expectalions, 011 and off duty, ofthe sworn members ()j' the Meriden Police Department. When co11fi·onted with a situation.for which spec/fie provisions have not been made, those circumstances will be dealt with in a manner that is consistent ·with the spirit of the standards and will preserve the integrity and credibility <!fthe Meriden Police Department. These standards (){conduct are.for internal use only and do not enlarge the scope ()fan employee's civil or criminal liability. Violation qf any (){these standards may result in an administrative pre-discip/inmy hearing known as a Loudermill Hearing. 1.2.318.4

CODE OF CONDUCT

A. The Meriden Police Department has established rules (){conduct lo govern /he deportment and appearance of employees. Any conduct that undermines the efficiency and discipline ()j'the Department, or is pr~judicial to maintaining order and the reputation (){/his agency, or any disobedience ()f orders, whether committed 011 01· off duty, and irrespective ()f/he existence qfa spec/fie rule relating, may su~jecf the employee to disciplinary action.

Summary

Captain Gaynor's control over the professional and personal email accounts to which the audio file "Pick Up Medication From Vehicle" had been sent/received, along with Cpt. Gaynor's admission, leave no doubt that Cpt. Gaynor created and maintained this particular recording. The recording was obtained without the knowledge of DC Topulos and without the permission from the only two authorities that could have granted Cpt. Gaynor permission; by court order or the Chief of Police (General Order 1.2.31, subsection 1).

It was at Cpt. Gaynor's request that the two meet four days after Cpl. Gaynor had already been placed on administrative leave. Given his response to questioning, it appears that Cpt. Gaynor's true intentions for recording DC Topulos were not in fear of retaliation but in hopes of obtaining a "sound bite" of DC Topulos substantiating allegations that he (Cpl. Gaynor) had filed against Chief Cossette on September 1, 2016. Cpl. Gaynor could have asked for permission to record the meeting but did not. "Secretly" obtaining the recording was clearly an aspect that Cpt. Gaynor did not wish to compromise. 14

At the time of the recording, Cpt. Gaynor was on paid administrative leave. I am personally aware that the vehicle in which Cpt. Gaynor was retrieving his personal belongings was parked against the back wall of the police department; within the gated area. Considering DC Topulos's response to Cpt. Gaynor's email, it would have been convenient for DC Topulos to meet with Cpt. Gaynor while he was working at the police department, therefore on duty at the time he met with Cpt. Gaynor. Irrespective of Cpt. Gaynor's duty status, police officers are held to a higher standard of conduct whether they are "on duty" or "off duty". Meriden Police Department policy specifically outlines this point as much (MPD General Order 1.2.31B, Standards of Conduct). DC Topulos's testimony indicates that he did not find Cpt. Gaynor's comments reminiscent of any interaction with former Chief Abbatematteo but, instead, narrowly directed at Chief Cossette. In having listened to the recording, I would support DC Topulos's interpretation of Cpt. Gaynor's derogatory remarks over that of Cpt. Gaynor's explanation. To my knowledge, Cpt. Gaynor has not sued Chief Cossette. According to the circumstances in which Cpt. Gaynor had outlined during his interview, I am left speculate whether or not his remarks were intended to alter Chief Cassette's course of action similar to the way in which former Chief Abbatematteo repo1tedly had. Regardless, Cpt. Gaynor's remarks left enough of an impact with DC Topulos that he (DC Topulos) felt compelled to include them as substantive and relative to Cpt. Gaynor's deportment toward Chief Cossette. Therefore, I find that there exists, by preponderance of the evidence, sufiicient proof to reasonably conclude that Cpt. Gaynor did surreptitiously record members of the police department, which may be a violation of Meriden Police Department General Order 1.2.31, Portable Recording Devices and/or Standards of Conduct as listed below.

1.2.31.1 Surreptitious Use of the Audio Recorder: Members shall not surreptitiously record another department member without a court order or authorization of the Chief of Police. Conduct Unbecoming an Employee: Any violation of the Standards of Conduct, General Orders, Special Orders, Written Directives, Memoranda, lawful orders, or any conduct or activities, on or off duty, which tends to undermine the good order, et1iciency and effectiveness of operation, mission, and discipline of the Department which brings discredit upon the Department or any member of the Depaiiment even though such conduct is not specifically set forth in these guidelines, shall constitute "Conduct Unbecoming an Employee." Insubordination: Members shall willfully observe and obey all lawful verbal and written rules, duties, policies, procedures and practices of the Meriden Police Department. All employees shall obey and properly execute any lawful order issued by a Department supervisor whether oral or written. Any employee whose speech or conduct 15

,, ,,

is disrespectful, discourteous, abusive, profane, or threatening towards another employee shall be deemed to be insubordinate, Supervisors shall treat subordinates with the same courtesy and respect that is required of subordinates towards supervisors, Criticisms of a member's performance will be made directly to the subordinate and, if feasible, in private. Additionally, I find that there exists, by preponderance of the evidence, sufficient proof that Cpt. Gaynor's speech during his meeting with DC Topulos may be in violation of Meriden Police Departmen\ General Order J ,2.31 B.4, Code of Conduct and /or Standards of Conduct as listed below. Insubordination: Members shall willfully observe and obey all lawful verbal and written rules, duties, policies, procedures and practices of the Meriden Police Department All employees shall obey and properly execute any lawful order issued by a Department supervisor whether oral or written. Any employee whose speech or conduct is disrespectful, discourteous, abusive, profane, or threatening towards another employee shall be deemed to be insubordinate. Supervisors shall treat subordinates with the same courtesy and respect that is required of subordinates towards supervisors. Criticisms of a member's performance will be made directly to the subordinate and, if feasible, in private.

Respectfully Submitted,

~ (If

C~~rFr(

Sergeant, Internal Affairs

Internal Affairs Investigation

Class 1

Complainant:

Office of the Chief of Police

Allegations:

Withholding of Evidence

Allegations Against:

Captain Patl'ick Gaynor

Case Number:

2016 Independent Investigation

Date of Incident:

Between 09/02/16 & 12/16/16

Time of Incident:

n/a

Location of Incident:

50 W. Main Street, Meriden

Type of Incident:

Withholding of Evidence

Internal Affairs Investigation:

Class 1

I.A. 17-14

Background On September 1, 2016, Chief of Police Jeffry Cossette initiated an internal investigation into the conduct of Captain Patrick Gaynor for the suspicion of having misused public funds and insubordination. This investigation was assigned to and conducted by Deputy Chief Mark Walerysiak; a detective lieutenant at the time. Later that same day, Captain Gaynor would file a complaint against Chief Cossette which alleged retaliatory conduct directed towards himself and other officers within the department. It would later be determined that the services of Berchern, Moses & Devlin, P.C. Attorneys & Counselors at Law would be retained in order to conduct the investigation into the allegations made by Captain Gaynor. On September 2, 2016, Chief of Police Jeffry Cossette convened a meeting with Deputy Chief of Police Timothy Topulos, Captain Patrick Gaynor, Union President John Williams, and Union Vice-President John Mennone. The intent of this meeting was to inform Captain Gaynor that he would be placed on administrative leave pending the completion of the internal investigation conducted by DC Walerysiak. On September 21, 2016, DC Walerysiak completed his investigation which was then submitted to Hearing Officer (Retired) Chief of Police Charles Reynolds. (R) Chief Reynolds was asked convene a Loudermill hearing and eventually determine an appropriate discipline for Captain Gaynor based on the outcome of Walerysiak's investigation and the Loudermill Hearing. On November 4, 2016, (R) Chief Reynolds submitted two decisions, one based on the allegations of Misappropriation ofPublic Funds and another based on the allegation .of Insubordination. (R) Chief Reynolds decided that Cpt. Gaynor had not misappropriated public funds but did find it appropriate for Cpt. Gaynor to receive a Supervisory Letter of Counseling for insubordination. As such, Cpt. Gaynor was returned to a full duty status on November 5, 2016. On December 16, 2016 the Law Offices ofBerchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C. returned a finding for their investigation of Chief Cossette based on the allegations filed by Cpt. Gaynor (Independent Investigation). Ultimately, they concluded that Cpt. Gaynor's retaliation claims had not been supported by evidence "nor was there sufficient evidence to support allegations that the Chief abused his authority or misused City resources" (Independent Investigation, 2016) as Cpt. Gaynor had alleged. On December 20, 2016, after having received the report from Berchem, Moses, & Devlin, P.C., City Manager Guy Scaife placed Cpt. Gaynor on administrative leave. In the interim, I was ordered to conduct an investigation as to whether or not Cpt. Gaynor had been in violation of department policy as it would pe1iain to the allegations he filed against Chief Cossette on September 1, 2016 (IA Case #16-42). That investigation was submitted to (R) Chief Reynolds on April 11, 2017. On May 19, 2017 (R) Chief Reynolds convened a Loudermill Hearing pertaining to the content IA Case #16-42. 2

On April 18, 2017, I was contacted by City of Meriden Attorney Deborah L. Moore. Atty. Moore asked that I meet with her in person, on that same day, if possible. At approximately 1320 hours, the two ofus met at her office in City Hall at 142 E. Main St. in Meriden. During this meeting, Atty. Moore explained to me that while she had been editing material as it would relate to a voluminous Freedom oflnformation Request, she had come across two audio files. Both of the audio files had been emailed from Captain Gaynor's work email, pgaynor@meridenct.gov, and sent to MPD0357@aol.com. It is worth noting that Captain Gaynor's badge number is 357. The email address roughly translates to Meriden Police Department badge number 357; an email address that Cpt. Gaynor has been known to regularly send/ receive correspondence to/from this particular email address. The two audio files had already been named as follows: â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘

Admin Leave Pick Up Medication From Vehicle

The "Admin Leave" file had been placed into a "drop box" account that was designated to expire on April 26, 2017. A "drop box" is designed for file sharing and the files within a "drop box" can be accessed by anyone that the originating account holder should so choose. Upon having played approximately 30 seconds of this file I was able to make an impromptu determination that the contents of the recording were that of a meeting that took place on September 2, 2016 in where Captain Gaynor had been placed on administrative leave. Upon having played approximately one minute of the "Pick Up Medication From Vehicle" file, I was able to discern the voices of Captain Gaynor and Deputy Chief of Police Timothy Topulos. I was not ce1iain as to the specific context of either recording but am acutely aware of a Meriden Police Department Policy which limits the discretion of officers as it would pertain to obtaining audio recordings of other depmiment members. It appeared to me that these recordings may have been secretly obtained and without the knowledge of those whose voices had been captured on the recordings. In order to preserve these files, they were downloaded onto a memory device and provided to me for further review. At 1333 hours, I contacted Chief Jeffry Cossette and requested that he meet with Atty. Moore and I in her office at City Hall. As chance would have it, Chief Cossette was scheduled for a 1400 hour meeting at City Hall and would be able to meet within 15 minutes of my request. Chief Cossette was then briefed on what I believed to be evidence of a Meriden Police Depatiment Policy violation. Before making a decision as how to proceed, Chief Cossette asked me to listen to the recordings more intently. Later that same afternoon, upon having received a more detailed assessment, Chief Cossette ordered me to initiate two internal affairs investigations into the conduct of Captain Gaynor as it would relate to two recordings that seemed to be surreptitiously obtained on two separate occasions. The two case numbers are IA Case # 17-12 and IA Case # 17-13. There was 3

On May 5, 2017, I briefed Chief Cossette as to my certainty, and Cpt. Gaynor's acknowledgment, that he had been responsible for secretly recording a meeting that was referenced in the Independent Investigation as well as two meetings that were discussed in IA Case# 16-42. In response, Chief Cossette ordered me to initiate two internal investigations into whether or not Cpt. Gaynor violated department policy in not having surrendered the recordings, that Cpt. Gaynor had manufactured, to either the Law Offices ofBerchem, Moses & Devlin or the Meriden Police Department's Office of Internal Affairs (IA Case #17-14 and IA Case #1715).

Investigation

On September 2, 2016, Chief Cossette placed Cpt. Gaynor on administrative leave while DC Walerysiak could conduct an investigation into Cpt. Gaynor as it related to the purchase of an administrative training course. Also in attendance during the meeting were Deputy Chief Timothy Topulos, Union President John Williams and Union Vice-President John Mennone. Unbeknownst to those in attendance, Cpt. Gaynor was recording the events immediately prior to the meeting, during the meeting, and events immediately after the meeting. The Law Offices ofBerchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C. were enlisted by the City of Meriden to investigate Cpt. Gaynor's claims that Chief Cossette demonstrated acts of retaliation, and additional charges of inappropriate conduct, in September of 2016. During the course of their investigation, Attorney Paula Anthony and Attorney Floyd Dugas met with Cpt. Gaynor on several occasions as his testimony would prove as an integral starting point for the Independent Investigation. In having listened to the recorded interviews between Cpt. Gaynor, Atty. Anthony and Atty. Dugas, I have discerned that Cpt. Gaynor portrayed the way in which he was placed on administrative leave (on September 2, 2016) as less than favorable and a continuation of Chief Cossette demonstrating acts of retaliation. Captain Gaynor describes the way in which he was escorted out of the building on, September 2, 2016, as ''Get out! Strip yourself off and leave. They left me without a car. They 4

walked me all over the building in front of everyone in the building, I mean, the entire building" (Recording, IA Case #16-42, Part 6-357 w APA, 45:30). Captain Gaynor would liken the way he was placed on leave as having been intentionally embarrassed, In a response to Attorney Anthony's questioning, Captain Gaynor would say that this (his placement on leave) was protocol but "there is a way to do it" and Cpt. Gaynor did not believe that had been done, To the point that Cpt. Gaynor's testimony indeed framed the sequence of his being placed on administrative leave as a continuation of retaliatory conduct, Atty. Anthony writes "Complainant alleges his being placed on paid leave on September 2, 20 I 6, and the manner in which it was effectuated, is a continuation of the retaliatory conduct as alleged in his September I, 2016 formal complaint" (Independent Investigation, 2016, pg 14), In a Notice of Intent to Sue dated September 22, 2016, the Law Office of John R. Williams and Associates, LLC advised Meriden's City Clerk, Denise Grandy, that they would be representing Patrick W. Gaynor. Paragraphs two and three of this letter read as follows: "On September 1, 2016 Captain Patrick W. Gaynor was placed on administrative leave after having been falsely accused of misappropriating City funds by Police ChiefJeffry Cossette and Deputy Chief Timothy Topulos. This latest action taken by Chief Cossette and Deputy ChiefTopulos is one in a series ofretaliatory acts taken against Captain Gaynor for prior protected speech involving the investigation and prosecution of Chief Jeffry Cossette's son, Evan Cossette, in the federal court. The speech which Captain Gaynor participated in is protected speech under the State of Connecticut Constitution and the United States Federal Constitution, Captain Gaynor has suffered financial loss, public humiliation and severe emotional distress due to the actions of these two highest ranking members of the Meriden Police Department, Cossette and Topulos. The events, and the injuries resulting, were proximately caused by the intentional refusal of the responsible officials of the City of Meriden to conduct themselves lawfully and in accordance with their department's own policy directives regarding anti-retaliation." During the course of the investigation, from its inception on September 13, 20 I 6 and its conclusion on December 16, 2016, not only did Cpt. Gaynor meet with Atty. Anthony and Atty. on a number of occasions (three) he had unfettered access to them via email. Cpt. Gaynor took advantage of his access to Atty. Anthony's email on at least two occasions. The first of which Cpt. Gaynor emailed Atty. Anthony to provide her with additional information that he believed substantiated his claim of retaliatory conduct and the second was on November 18, 2016 in where Cpt. Gaynor brought some clarity to one of Atty. Anthony's interview questions as well as to restate a training issue to which he had taken exception. Correspondence from Atty. Paula Anthony

Shortly after I !eamed of the recordings that Cpt. Gaynor had manufactured, I contacted Atty. Anthony and explained to her that a recording of the September 2, 2016 meeting had been

recovered and asked her what her thoughts on the matter were. On April 21, 2017 I received an email from Atty. Anthony which was also sent to Atty. Dugas. Atty. Anthony writes: "You have advised that, in the course of your internal affairs investigation into Captain Gaynor's actions in connection with his retaliation claims against Chief Cossette and/or Deputy Chief Topulos, you discovered the existence of an audio recording of the September 2, 2016 meeting at which Captain Gaynor was placed on paid administrative leave. Further, you have asked (1) whether that information was provided to me in conjunction with the investigation this office was asked to conduct regarding Captain Gaynor's complaint, and (2) if not, whether knowledge of the existence of that recording would have been relevant to our investigation. In answer to your questions: (I) No, I was not provided with the audio recording, nor made aware of its existence during the investigation; and (2) Yes, knowledge of the existence of the audio recording would have been relevant to our investigation, as it may have provided objective evidence relative to Captain Gaynor's allegation, as part of his complaints, that proper protocol and/or procedure was not followed when he was placed on leave on September 2, 2016" (Email, Atty. Anthony titled: Capt. Gaynor, 04/21/2017)

Interview with Cpt. Patrick Gaynor On May 16, 2016, I met with Cpt. Gaynor in the Internal Affairs Office. Cpt. Gaynor was accompanied by Union President John Williams. Before we began the interview, Cpt. Gaynor was provided with a "Garity Notice" which he signed. The interview was recorded and archived with the internal affairs case file under "Part 2". Captain Gaynor was infonned that our single interview was in regard to IA Case # 17-14 and IA Case # 17-15. When I referenced the Independent Investigation written by Atty. Anthony and Internal Affairs investigation 16-42, Cpt. Gaynor acknowledged that he had read both reports. By this point, Cpt. Gaynor and I had already discussed the fact that he had surreptitiously recorded the sequence of events as he was placed on administrative leave on September 2, 2016 (IA Case #17-12 & #17-13). I asked Cpt. Gaynor what he intended on doing with that recording particularly if the contents of that meeting suppo1ied his allegations of retaliatory conduct. Cpt. Gaynor stated that he did not know and did not "think too much about them" and having listened to what transpired he did not think there was anything on them (Recording, Part 2, 03 :40). He did not think there was anything pertinent on the tapes. Cpt. Gaynor did not think the recordings were germane to the investigation of retaliatory conduct (Recording, Part 2, 04:00 - 04:26). If, however, Atty. Anthony said something that jogged Cpt. Gaynor's memory about the recording or asked him about having any recordings, Cpt. Gaynor stated that he may have remembered (Recording, Part 2, 10:40 - 10:56). Similarly, Cpt. Gaynor stated that he was not reminded of the recordings during any interviews with me (Recording, Part 2, 10:57 - 11 :36) even though we specifically talked about the September 2, 2016 meeting. Cpt. Gaynor had previously stated that he had recorded the meeting because he "wanted to preserve a record of what happened because I don't think that, uh, the honest, uh, version of what happened was going to be supported by anybody else in that meeting" (Recording, IA Case 6

17-12, Gaynor Interview, 02:31 - 03 :0 I). Although Cpt. Gaynor did not recall saying this, I asked him whether or not, after having read the Independent Investigation (which addresses the September 2, 2016 meeting), he felt as if though anyone else had been dishonest about the content of that meeting and subsequent events. Cpt. Gaynor responded, "I wouldn't say it was dishonest but I would say it's definitely a different, there's different interpretations of how the whole thing transpired. Yes" (Recording, Part 2, 06:37 - 06:49). I pointed out to Cpt. Gaynor that there often can be two sides to every story and different interpretations as to how events can transpire. However, in this case, Cpt. Gaynor was in possession of a recording of exactly how events transpired. I asked if he still did not find the recording as a pertinent piece of information to provide to an investigator. PG:

Ah, well, I didn't even think about, like I already said, uh, the recordings until, um, sometime later.

CF:

When would later be?

PG:

Oh boy. It was, like, a couple of months ago maybe. A month ago, two months ago.

CF:

And why didn't you bring them to surface then?

PG:

Uh, the reports are already done. If I had new information, I can't send it down to Paula Anthony at this point. And I...

CF:

Do you think that you're in a position to determine that? Make that call?

PG:

I don't understand what you mean by that. Am I in a position to determine.,.

CF:

Whether or not you should submit it; not at all or late.

PG:

Uh, their investigation is over they've already concluded, uh, what they concluded. So, the IA investigation is over as well. I mean, is that going to make any difference? I don't know. Do you think it will? If I tell you right now about a glaring error in your IA investigation are you going to go back and remedy it right now?

CF:

It's certainly worth noting. (Recording, Part 2, 07:05 - 08:20)

recordings in his possession would have been valuable to either Atty. Anthony or myself. Cpt. Gaynor maintained that he did not remember that he had the recordings in possession and "taking into consideration that the report was already out and the conclusion was already reached, um, uh, I mean yeah. I would say that the recording wasn't going to do any diff. .. wasn't going to make any difference (Recording, Part 2, 12:51 - 16:05). I followed his response with the question "How about now? If I said it would make a difference to have that recording or, do, do you think it is, is, relevant in any way, manner?" Cpt. Gaynor responded, "I don't know" (Recording, Part 2, 16:04 - 16: 15). I asked whether or not it was plausible for anyone else to believe that he (Cpt. Gaynor) had not intentionally disclosed or offer this particular recording because, in either investigation (17-14 & 17-15), the content of the recording might discredit him in some fashion. Cpl. Gaynor responded, "No" but "someone could try to say that it did yes. It's plausible. Like you just said, my recollection of what happened was not what you heard on the recording (Recording, Part 2, 17:00 - 17:37). Given the difference of perceptions as to what Cpt. Gaynor has previously stated was on the recording compared to what I perceived to be on the recording is not an issue that Cpt. Gaynor believes could affect his credibility as a law enforcement officer (Recording, Part 2, 17:46- 18:24). I asked Cpt. Gaynor if he was falsely accused of inappropriate activity or inappropriate behavior whether or not he would want someone to come forward with evidence to the contrary. Cpt. Gaynor responded, "I don't know wh, wha, what the meaning, what the, what the, what the intent of the question is or what you mean by that. As far as, you're talking about how I portrayed to, ah, Paula Anthony how I was placed on administrative leave (pause) and then. Could you repeat the .. .is that what you're referring to?" (Recording, Part 2, 21 :26 - 22:05) I had to pose this question to Cpt. Gaynor for a second time; phrased only slightly differently. CF:

If you were falsely accused of inappropriate acts or behaviors, wouldn't you want someone to come forward with evidence to the contrary? Basically vindicating you?

PG:

(after a pause) I would have to say yes.

interview to what I heard on the audio recording "Admin Leave". I would characterize the actual event as more boisterous and sarcastic. Both recordings are available for continued assessment. There is a moment in the interview which becomes contentious when Cpt. Gaynor elects not to answer a question. CF:

So, are you held to a different standard if, traditionally speaking, you had, what I think in our line of work would be called, exculpatory information? Do you not feel a duty to bring that to light? Do you not feel like a there is ....

PG:

I've already answered this question

CF:

I'm asking

PG:

Chris.

CF:

again, Captain.

PF: Repeatedly. I'm, I'm not going to keep answering it sir, unfo1iunately. I'm going to tell you what. I've already answered the question repeatedly. I did not recall.. CF:

The question is whether or

PG:

I did not recall it. I did not recall it.

CF:

you have a duty to provide it. That's the question

PG:

No, (unintelligible) after the fact?

CF:

Do you think there is a duty after the fact? That's the question.

PG:

I just told you something after the fact as an example. Are you going to include that?

CF:

I'm asking you right now whether or not you think, after the fact, you feel as if though you had a duty to bring it to light?

PG:

I don't think so, no. I don't think that. I didn't even think about the recording until I located, until I found it. Stumbled upon it, however you want to call it and there it is. I didn't think that, I didn't think anything about it. I've already answered that repeatedly. You keep asking me to go back in time and try and reopen a closed investigation from an outside law. I'm not going to pay them to reopen the investigation. I mean, they're not going (unintelligible) redo their work, right? (Recording, Part 2, 25:38 - 26:53)

to IA Case # 16-42 and the Independent Investigation. When asked whether or not he would have provided the recordings at the Loudermill Hearing Cpt. Gaynor responded, "Well, I imagine that I would have, uh, said something about the recordings. I don't know" (Recording, Part 2, 28:05 - 28:14). Policy The Meriden Police Department does have a policy that governs untruthfulness (MPD General Order 1.0). Below is an excerpt from that policy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PURPOSE: To establish a written directive, which requires all officers to take an oath of office / oath of honor and abide by a canon of ethics, prior to assuming sworn status. POLICY: It is the policy of the Meriden Police Department that all officers will take an oath of office/ oath of honor prior to assuming sworn status, and that they will abide by a canon and code of police ethics. The Chief of Police will administer the oath to all sworn employees. RELATIONSHIP TO MISSION AND VALUES: An oath is universally recognized as a solemn pledge. Public trust, confidence and support are essential if the Department is to fulfill its commitment to the citizens of Meriden. Sincere commitment to an oath can provide vital guidance to officers during their career, especially when faced with difficult choices. Such commitment can also provide a moral anchor and a solid, emotional foundation that can endure the test of time. Officers must always behave in an ethical manner by sincerely abiding by this pledge to win the public's trust, confidence and support. PROCEDURE: 1.0.1

LEGAL AUTHORITY

Sworn members of the Meriden Police Department shall suppo1i and uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Connecticut; laws and statutes of the United States and the State of Connecticut; the Charter and ordinances of the City of Meriden; and the policies and procedures and Standards of Conduct of the Meriden Police Department. The sworn members of the Meriden Police Department derive their power and authority from state and local law, as provided for in the General Statutes of the State of Connecticut and the Charter of the City of Meriden. Title 54 of the Connecticut General Statutes (Chapters 959* through 960*) details the legal authority of Connecticut law enforcement officers. Sworn officers of the Meriden Police Depaiiment shall enforce all state and federal laws, including the ordinances of the City of Meriden. 10

1.0.2

OATH OF OFFICE/OATH OF HONOR

Police officers take risks and suffer inconveniences to protect the lives, defend civil liberties, secure the safety of fellow citizens, and they endure such risks and tolerate such inconveniences on behalf of strangers. Consequently, police work is one of the more noble and selfless occupations in society. Making a difference in the quality of life is an opportunity that policing provides, and few other professions can offer. A public affirmation of adhering to an oath is a powerful vehicle demonstrating ethical standards. Prior to assuming sworn status, all police personnel shall take an Oath of Office /Oath of Honor and pledge never to betray their badge, integrity or character and never to compromise the public trust. A copy of the Oath of Office /Oath of Honor is attached to this order as Appendix A.

1.0.3

LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE OF ETHICS/UNTRUTHFULNESS

There is little disagreement among law enforcement administrators that upholding professional ethics is the most critical issue facing our profession. The conduct and behavior of police officers should emphasize the Department's core values and the principles to the extent that they meet or exceed the public's expectations in the delivery of professional law enforcement services. All employees of the Meriden Police Department are required to abide and uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct and share equally in the Department's commitment to its mission, goals and objectives. All sworn members shall abide by and are bound by the spirit and intent of all adopted codes of conduct. Therefore, all officers of the Meriden Police Department shall abide by the IACP Law Enforcement Code ofEthics, a copy of which appears as Appeudix B. In compliance with professional law enforcement ethics, sworn members of the Meriden Police Department are expected to be fully truthful and honest in all their dealings (when duty dictates). Sworn members shall not engage in lies or evasive half-truths that mislead or do not fully inform those who must depend upon their honesty. Sworn members must understand that cowis focus on the overt duty of law enforcement officers to always be truthful as demanded by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. One of the prime essential functions of a police officer is being able to tell the truth. Once a police officer's character, integrity, and/or reputation have been compromised or sullied, his/her ability to render credible and effective testimony in court, or before boards and/or commissions, is likely to be impeached. Untruthful law enforcement officers taint the entire criminal justice system and the public's perceptions of our profession. Untruthfulness undermines the public's trust and confidence in our Police Department and is therefore contrary to our mission. Members 11

are warned that ove1i acts of deception, omission, untruthfulness, or major acts of unethical behavior may lead to termination and dece1iification.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary As officers of the law, we are trained as to the importance of carefully preserving the custody and integrity of evidence. Evidence, in and of itself, can take on the shape of many forms. Ranging from video surveillance to latent fingerprints, investigators are trained to scrutinize and analyze this information as it can either confirm or refute testimonials and help form an impartial re-creation of events for further assessment. Although Cpt. Gaynor claims that he was never reminded of the fact that he was in possession of two surreptitiously obtained recordings, he did discover them of his own accord, on at least March 27, 2017 (the day he emailed himself the Admin Leave audio file) and April 14, 2017 (the day he emailed himself the Pick Up Medication From Vehicle audio file). Notwithstanding, Cpt. Gaynor manufactured the recordings and was in constant possession of them from the moment they were created on September 2, 2016 and September 6, 2016 to present day. The Law Offices ofBerchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C. were retained by the City of Meriden on September 13, 2016 to investigate a multitude of allegations filed by Cpt. Gaynor as he would later set before them. Atty. Anthony rendered her findings on December 16, 2016. As was stated by Cpt. Gaynor, he did not disclose any audio recordings to Atty. Anthony during the various meetings he had with her or through email correspondence; an avenue of communication that he had elected to use on at least two occasions. This is also corroborated by correspondence from Atty. Anthony. Despite Cpt. Gaynor's belief that the recordings would have no bearing on a closed investigation, I do not believe an investigation that has formed a conclusion is immune from new and relevant information. This is a sentiment that has been shared by Atty. Anthony and is the founding philosophy behind criminal defense projects used to exonerate wrongly convicted individuals across the country (www.innocenceproject.org). In-part Cpt. Gaynor alleged that the way in which he was placed on administrative leave created an undue embarrassment. I have no doubt that Cpt. Gaynor felt embarrassed as he was placed on administrative leave on September 2, 2016. I do, however, contend that Cpt. Gaynor may have contributed to his own embarrassment; more than he would like to admit. In the face of conflicting testimonials of that day, the recording in which Cpt. Gaynor possessed (titled Adm in Leave) is the most accurate, available, and impartial record of events as they transpired that day. This recording may bear the value of partially excusing the culpability of others involved in Cpt. Gaynor's allegation that his placement on administrative leave on September 2, 12

2016 was somehow inappropriate. I believe that Cpt. Gaynor should have recognized the implicit value of the recording and allowed for an appropriate authority to determine how to proceed with the new information. This did not occur. I find little doubt that Cpt. Gaynor knew of the content of the recordings for which he manufactured, retained, and possessed on September 2, and September 6, 2016. While Cpt. Gaynor maintains that his non-submission of audio recordings was an act of forgetfulness and a lack of recognition for the audio recordings' relevancy to any investigation, I believe that an alternate perspective may be considered. Therefore, I find that there exists, by preponderance of the evidence, sufficient proof to reasonably conclude that Cpt. Gaynor withheld evidence in connection with an investigation that was conducted by the Law Offices ofBerchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C., and furthermore, converted the evidence for his personal use which may be a violation of Meriden Police Department Standards of Conduct 1.2.JIB.6, subsection B, item 23:

23. Property and Evidence: No member of the Department shall destroy, conceal, remove, falsify, manufacture, tamper with, withhold, or convert to his/her own use any property or evidence in connection with an investigation or other police action, except in accordance with established Department practices and procedures. Under no circumstances will property be stored in an officer's locker or in any other manner that would compromise the chain of custody or subject the property to the risk of theft or damage. I also find that there exists, by a preponderance of evidence, sufficient proof to reasonably conclude that Cpt. Gaynor may have withheld evidence as an act of deception, an omission, and in fmiherance of untruthfulness for his pmirayal in which he was placed on administrative leave on September 2, 2016; a violation of MPD General Order 1.0. and Department Standards of Conduct l.2.31B, subsection B, items I, 2, 3, 5, & 12:

Conduct Unbecoming an Employee: Any violation of the Standards of Conduct, General Orders, Special Orders, Written Directives, Memoranda, lawfol orders, or any conduct or activities, on or off duty, which tends to undermine the good order, efficiency and effectiveness of operation, mission, and discipline of the Department which brings discredit upon the Depmiment or any member of the Department even though such conduct is not specifically set forth in these guidelines, shall constitute "Conduct Unbecoming an Employee. " 2. Accountability, Respo11sibility, and Discipline: Officers are directly accountable for their actions through the chain of command, up to the Chief of Police. Officers shall cooperate fully in any internal administrative investigation conducted by this or any other authorized agency and shall provide complete and accurate information in regard to any issue under investigation. Officers shall be accurate, complete, and truthful in all matters. Officers shall accept full responsibility for their actions without attempting to conceal, divert or mitigate their true culpability. Officers shall not engage in efforts to thwart, influence, or interfere with an internal or criminal investigation. 13

3. Violation of General Orders, Rules and Directives: Members of the Meriden Police Department shall observe and comply with the lawful orders, directives and expectations (e.g., work rules, policies, procedures, and practices) established for the effective, efficient and safe operation of the police department. 5. Dishonesty or Untrutltfu/ness: Members of the Meriden Police Department shall not lie, give misleading information or half-truths, or falsify written or verbal communications in official reports or in their statements or actions with supervisors, another person, or other agency when it is reasonable to expect that such information may be relied upon because of the member's position as a police officer with this Department. Untruthfulness may lead to decertification by the Police Officer Standards and Training Council (POSTC). 12. U11satisfact01y Pe,:formance: Employees shall maintain sufficient competency to properly perform their duties and assume the responsibilities of their position. Personnel shall perform their duties in a manner which will maintain the highest standards of efficiency in carrying out the functions of their position and the objectives of the Meriden Police Department. Unsatisfactory performance may be demonstrated by a lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be enforced; an unwillingness or inability to perform assigned tasks; the failure to conform to work standards established for the employee's rank, grade or position; the failure to take appropriate action during the investigation of a crime or incident deserving police action; or absence without leave including willful abuse of sick time. In addition to other indicia of unsatisfactory performance, the following will be considered primafacia evidence of unsatisfactory performance: repeated poor evaluations or a written record of repeated violations of policies, procedures, or directives.

Respectfully Submitted,

4 C

~-z, -'/It

Christopher Fry Sergeant, Internal Affairs

Internal Affairs Investigation

Class 1

Complainant:

Office of the Chief of Police

Allegations:

Withholding of Evidence

I.A. 17-15

AUegations-A:gainst~.---------Paptain-Patrick-(fayno

Case Number:

2016 Independent Investigation

Date of Incident:

Between 12/20/16 & 04/12/17

Time of Incident:

n/a

Location of Incident:

50 W. Main Street, Meriden

Type of Incident:

Withholding of Evidence

Internal Affairs Investigation:

Class 1

I.A. 17-15

â&#x20AC;˘

Background On September 1, 2016, Chief of Police Jeffry Cossette initiated an internal investigation into the conduct of Captain Patrick Gaynor for the suspicion of having misused public funds and insubordination. This investigation was assigned to and conducted by Deputy Chief Mark Walerysiak; a detective lieutenant at the time. Later that same day, Captain Gaynor would file a complaint against Chief Cossette which alleged retaliatory conduct directed towards himself and other officers within the department. It would later be determined that the services of Berchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C. Attorneys & Counselors at Law would be retained in order to conduct the investigation into the allegations made by Captain Gaynor. On September 2, 2016, Chief of Police Jeffry Cossette convened a meeting with Deputy Chief of Police Timothy Topulos, Captain Patrick Gaynor, Union President John Williams, and Union Vice-President John Mennone. The intent of this meeting was to inform Captain Gaynor that he would be placed on administrative leave pending the completion of the internal investigation conducted by DC Walerysiak. On September 21, 2016, DC Walerysiak completed his investigation which was then submitted to Hearing Officer (Retired) Chief of Police Charles Reynolds. (R) Chief Reynolds was asked convene a Loudermill hearing and eventually determine an appropriate discipline for Captain Gaynor based on the outcome ofWalerysiak's investigation and the Loudermill Hearing. On November 4, 2016, (R) Chief Reynolds submitted two decisions, one based on the allegations of Misappropriation of Public Funds and another based on the allegation of Insubordination. (R) Chief Reynolds decided that Cpt. Gaynor had not misappropriated public funds but did find it appropriate for Cpt. Gaynor to receive a Supervisory Letter of Counseling for insubordination. As such, Cpt. Gaynor was returned to a full duty status on November 5, 2016. On December 16, 2016 the Law Offices of Berchem, Moses & Devlin, P .C. returned a finding for their investigation of Chief Cossette based on the allegations filed by Cpt. Gaynor (Independent Investigation). Ultimately, they concluded that Cpl. Gaynor's retaliation claims had not been supported by evidence "nor was there sufficient evidence to support allegations that the Chief abused his authority or misused City resources" (Independent Investigation, 2016) as Cpt. Gaynor had alleged. On December 20, 2016, after having received the report from Berchem, Moses, & Devlin, P.C., City Manager Guy Scaife placed Cpl. Gaynor on administrative leave. In the interim, I was ordered to conduct an investigation as to whether or not Cpl. Gaynor had been in violation of department policy as it would pertain to the allegations he filed against Chief Cossette on September 1, 2016 (IA Case #16-42). That investigation was submitted to (R) Chief Reynolds on April 11, 2017. On May 19, 2017 (R) Chief Reynolds convened a Loudermill Hearing pertaining to the content of!A Case # I 6-42. 2

On April 18, 201 7, I was contacted by City of Meriden Attorney Deborah L. Moore. Atty. Moore asked that I meet with her in person, on that same day, if possible. At approximately 1320 hours, the two ofus met at her office in City Hall at 142 E. Main St. in Meriden. During this meeting, Atty. Moore explained to me that while she had been editing material as it would relate to a voluminous Freedom of Information Request, she had come across two audio files. Both of the audio files had been emailed from Captain Gaynor's work email, pgaynor@meridenct.gov, and sent to MPD0357@aol.com. It is worth noting that Captain Gaynor's badge number is 357. The email address roughly translates to Meriden Police Department badge number 357; an email address that Cpt. Gaynor has been known to regularly send/ receive correspondence to/from. The two audio files had already been named as follows: • •

Admin Leave Pick Up Medication From Vehicle

The "Admin Leave" file had been placed into a "drop box" account that was designated to expire on April 26, 2017. A "drop box" is.designed for file sharing and the files within a "drop box" can be accessed by anyone that the originating account holder should so choose. Upon having played approximately 30 seconds of this file I was able to make an impromptu determination that the contents of the recording were that of a meeting that took place on September 2, 2016 in where Captain Gaynor had been placed on administrative leave. Upon having played approximately one minute of the "Pick Up Medication From Vehicle" file, I was able to discern the voices of Captain Gaynor and Deputy Chief of Police Timothy Topulos. I was not ce1tain as to the specific context of either recording but am acutely aware of a Meriden Police Depmtment Policy which limits the discretion of officers as it would pertain to obtaining audio recordings of other department members. It appeared to me that these recordings may have been secretly obtained and without the knowledge of those whose voices had been captured on the recordings. In order to preserve these files, they were downloaded onto a memory device and provided to me for further review. At 1333 hours, I contacted Chief Jeffry Cossette and requested that he meet with Atty. Moore and I in her office at City Hall. As chance would have it, Chief Cossette was scheduled for a 1400 hour meeting at City Hall and would be able to meet within 15 minutes of my request. Chief Cossette was then briefed on what I believed to be evidence of a Meriden Police Department Policy violation. Before making a decision as how to proceed, Chief Cossette asked me to listen to the recordings more intently. Later that same afternoon, upon having received a more detailed assessment, Chief Cossette ordered me to initiate two internal affairs investigations into the conduct of Captain Gaynor as it would relate to two recordings that seemed to be surreptitiously obtained on two separate occasions.· The two case numbers are IA Case# 17-12 and IA Case# 17-13. There was

also discussion as to whether or not Cpt. Gaynor had a responsibility to disclose the existence of each recording. On May 4, 2017, I interviewed Cpt. Gaynor as it would related to IA Case # 17-12 and IA Case #17-13. During that interview, Cpt. Gaynor admitted to having surreptitiously recorded members of the Meriden Police Department on two separate occasions. He would also admit that he had emailed those recordings to himself. On May 5, 2017, I briefed Chief Cossette as to my certainty, and Cpt. Gaynor's acknowledgment, that he had been responsible for secretly recording a meeting that was referenced in the Independent Investigation as well as two meetings that were discussed in IA Case# 16-42. In response, Chief Cossette ordered me to initiate two internal investigations into whether or not Cpt. Gaynor violated department policy in not having surrendered the recordings, that Cpt. Gaynor had manufactured, to either the Law Offices of Berchem, Moses & Devlin or the Meriden Police Depaiiment's Office oflnternal Affairs (IA Case #17-14 and IA Case #1715).

Investigation On September 2, 2016, Chief Cossette placed Cpt. Gaynor on administrative leave while DC Walerysiak could conduct an investigation into Cpt. Gaynor as it related to the purchase of an administrative training course. Also in attendance during the meeting were Deputy Chief Timothy Topulos, Union President John Williams and Union Vice-President John Mennone. Unbeknownst to those in attendance, Cpt. Gaynor was recording the events immediately prior to the meeting, during the meeting, and events immediately after the meeting. This particular day and meeting became one focal point in a multi-facetted complaint filed by Cpt. Gaynor. Although pati of his complaint was filed on September I, 20 I 6, numerous subsequent events were encapsulated by the Independent Investigation, which addressed Cpt. Gaynor's complaints, in the weeks to follow while he (Cpt. Gaynor) provided testimony to representatives from the Law Offices ofBerchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C. On February 22, 2017, I interviewed Cpt. Gaynor as it related to the Internal Affairs Investigation initiated by City Manager Scaife on December 20, 20 I 6 (IA Case # 16-42). o;ring the course of our interview, we spent some time addressing the manner in which Cpt. Gaynor portrayed his version of events on September 2, 2016 to Atty. Anthony and Atty. Dugas. (Recording, IA Case# 16-42, Cpt. Gaynor IA Interview Part I, 01:37:44-01:48:51).

It was during this portion of the interview that Cpt. Gaynor and I discussed the very specifics of how his placement on paid administrative leave had been effectuated. Although Cpt. Gaynor still contends the reasoning and timing for having been placed on paid administrative leave, in regard to the manner it was effectuated Cpt. stated, "It also wasn't handled discretely in 4

a way where this would not cause any embarrassment, that's correct" (Recording, IA Case# 1642, Cpt. Gaynor IA Interview Part 1, 01:47:59 - 01:48:09). Cpt. Gaynor would then continue to outline other ways in which his paid administrative leave could have been effectuated in a way more amenable by his determination. This particular portion of the interview was prompted by the statements made by Cpl. Gaynor to Atty. Anthony and Atty. Dugas while submitting testimony to them in regard to the Independent Investigation. Cpt. Gaynor submits testimony to them which exaggerates the manner in which he was placed on administrative leave; "Get out! Strip yourself off and leave. They left me without a car. They walked me all over the building in front of everyone in the building. I mean, the entire building" (Recording, IA Case #16-42, Part 6-357 w APA, 45:30). Interview with Cpt. Patrick Gaynor On May 16, 2016, I met with Cpt. Gaynor in the Internal Affairs Office. Cpt. Gaynor was accompanied by Union President John Williams. Before we began the interview, Cpt. Gaynor was providedwitha"GarityNotice"whiclrhe signed~Theinterview was recorded an archived with the internal affairs case file under "Part 2". Captain Gaynor was informed that our single interview was in regard to IA Case# 17-14 and IA Case# 17-15. When I referenced the Independent Investigation written by Atty. Anthony and Internal Affairs investigation 16-42, Cpl. Gaynor acknowledged that he had read both reports. By this point, Cpl. Gaynor and I had already discussed the fact that he had surreptitiously recorded the sequence of events as he was placed on administrative leave on September 2, 2016 (IA Case #17-12 & #17-13). I asked Cpt. Gaynor what he intended on doing with that recording particularly if the contents of that meeting supported his allegations ofretaliatory conduct. Cpt. Gaynor stated that he did not know and did not "think too much about them" and having listened to what transpired he did not think there was anything on them (Recording, Part 2, 03:40). He did not think there was anything pertinent on the tapes. Cpt. Gaynor did not think the recordings were germane to the investigation of retaliatory conduct (Recording, Part 2, 04:00 - 04:26). If, however, Atty. Anthony said something that jogged Cpt. Gaynor's memory about the recording or asked him about having any recordings, Cpl. Gaynor stated that he may have remembered (Recording, Part 2, 10:40 - 10:56). Similarly, Cpt. Gaynor stated that he was not reminded of the recordings during any interviews with me (Recording, Pmi 2, 10:57 - 11 :36) even though we specifically talked about the September 2, 2016 meeting. Cpt. Gaynor had previously stated that he had recorded the meeting because he "wanted to preserve a record of what happened because I don't think that, uh, the honest, uh, version of what happened was going to be supported by anybody else in that meeting" (Recording, IA Case 17-12, Gaynor Interview, 02:31 - 03 :01 ). I pointed out to Cpl. Gaynor that there often can be two sides to every story and difterent interpretations as to how events can transpire. However, in this case, Cpt. Gaynor was in possession of a recording of exactly how events transpired. I asked 5

if he still did not find the recording as a pertinent piece of infonnation to provide to an investigator. PG:

Ah, well, I didn't even think about, like I already said, uh, the recordings until, um, sometime later.

CF:

When would later be?

PG:

Oh boy. It was, like, a couple of months ago maybe. A month ago, two months ago.

CF:

And why didn't you bring them to surface then?

PG:

Uh, the reports are already done. If I had new information, I can't send it down to Paula Anthony at this point. And I...

CF:

Do you think that you're in a position to determine that? Make that call?

PG:

I don't understand what you mean by that. Am I in a position to determine ...

CF:

Whether or not you should submit it; not at all or late.

PG:

Uh, their investigation is over they've already concluded, uh, what they concluded. So, the IA investigation is over as well. I mean, is that going to make any difference? 1 don't know. Do you think it will? If I tell you right now about a glaring error in your IA investigation are you going to go back and remedy it right now?

CF:

It's certainly worth noting. (Recording, Part 2, 07:05 - 08:20)

Although Cpt. Gaynor states that he has not listened to the recordings, I asked Cpt. Gaynor if he thought that he might have been the only person that mischaracterized those events (that had been recorded) as they unfolded. Cpt. Gaynor responded, "I'm not sure. I don't know" (Recording, Part 2, 09:39 - 09:42). I asked Cpt. Gaynor ifhe thought he was untruthful when speaking to either Atty. Anthony or myself in regard to the matter. Cpt. Gaynor responded, "I wasn't untruthful at all" (Recording, Part 2, 09:47). I pointed out to Cpt. Gaynor the number of different ranks and positions he has held in the Meriden Police Department and the trouble I had with his lack of recognition that the recordings in his possession would have been valuable to either Atty. Anthony or myself. Cpt. Gaynor maintained that he did not remember that he had the recordings in possession and "taking into consideration that the report was already out and the conclusion was already reached, um, uh, I mean yeah. I would say that the recording wasn't going to do any diff .. wasn't going to make any difference (Recording, Part 2, 12:51 - 16:05). I followed his response with the question "How about now? If I said it would make a difference to have that recording or, do, do you think it is, is, relevant in any way, manner?" Cpt. Gaynor responded, "I don't know" (Recording, Part 2, 16:04 - 16:15). 6

I asked whether or not it was plausible for anyone else to believe that he (Cpt. Gaynor) had not intentionally disclosed or offer this particular recording because, in either investigation (17-14 & 17-15), the content of the recording might discredit him in some fashion. Cpt. Gaynor responded, "No" but "someone could try to say that it did yes. It's plausible. Like you just said, my recollection of what happened was not what you heard on the recording (Recording, Part 2, 17:00 - 17:37). Given the difference of perceptions as to what Cpt. Gaynor has previously stated was on the recording compared to what I perceived to be on the recording is not an issue that Cpl. Gaynor believes could affect his credibility as a law enforcement officer (Recording, Part 2, 17:46 - 18:24). I asked Cpt. Gaynor ifhe was falsely accused of inappropriate activity or inappropriate behavior whether or not he would want someone to come forward with evidence to the contrary. Cpt. Gaynor responded,

- - - - - - ' " ' ' cl0n't-lm0w-wh,wha,what-the-meaning,what-the,what-the,what-the-intent-0f-the-question-i~-----~ or what you mean by that. As far as, you're talking about how I portrayed to, ah, Paula Anthony how I was placed on administrative leave (pause) and then. Could you repeat the .. .is that what you're referring to?" (Recording, Part 2, 21 :26 - 22:05) I had to pose this question to Cpl. Gaynor for a second time; phrased only slightly differently. CF:

If you were falsely accused of inappropriate acts or behaviors, wouldn't you want someone to come forward with evidence to the contrary? Basically vindicating you?

PG:

(after a pause) I would have to say yes.

Cpt. Gaynor maintains that, to his recollection, he was not drawing attention to himself, or the situation as a whole, when he was placed on administrative leave on September 2, 2016 (Recording, Part 2, 23 :43 - 24:27) At one point in the interview (25 :25) Cpt. Gaynor recalled the way in which he said "hello" on the day he was placed on administrative leave. This portrayal was in bashful or sheepish tone. By my assessment, there is a drastic difference in this pmirayal during our interview to what I heard on the audio recording "Admin Leave". I would characterize the actual event as more boisterous and sarcastic. Both recordings are available for continued assessment. There is a moment in the interview which becomes contentious when Cpl. Gaynor elects not to answer a question.

CF:

PG:

I've already answered this question

CF:

I'm asking

PG:

Chris.

CF:

again, Captain.

PF: Repeatedly. I'm, I'm not going to keep answering it sir, unfortunately. I'm going to tell you what. I've already answered the question repeatedly. I did not recall.. CF:

The question is whether or

PG:

I did not recall it. I did not recall it.

CF:

you have a duty to provide it. That's the question

PG:

No, (unintelligible) after the fact?

CF:

Do you think there is a duty after the fact? That's the question.

PG:

I just told you something after the fact as an example. Are you going to include that?

CF:

I'm asking you right now whether or not you think, after the fact, you feel as if though you had a duty to bring it to light?

PG:

I don't think so, no. I don't think that. I didn't even think about the recording until I located, until I found it. Stumbled upon it, however you want to call it and there it is. I didn't think that, I didn't think anything about it. I've already answered that repeatedly. You keep asking me to go back in time and try and reopen a close investigation from an outside law. I'm not going to pay them to reopen the investigation. I mean, they're not going (unintelligible) redo their work, right? (Recording, Part 2, 25:38 - 26:53)

Cpt. Gaynor expressed his continued frustration with the predicament that he feels he is in. In the meantime, Cpt. Gaynor acknowledges his opportunity to provide relevant materials to a hearing officer on May 19, 2017. This is the date of his Loudermill Hearing as it would relate to IA Case # I 6-42 and the Independent Investigation. When asked whether or not he would have provided the recordings at the Loudermill Hearing Cpt. Gaynor responded, "Well, I imagine that I would have, uh, said something about the recordings. I don't know" (Recording, Part 2, 28:05 - 28:14).

made (IA Case # 16-42, pg. 68). On May 4, 2017, Cpt. Gaynor was adamant that he was misquoted by Deputy ChiefTopulos and that the material was taken out of context. In light of having read this passage in IA Case #16-42, Cpt. Gaynor claimed that it did not jog his memory as having been in possession of a recording of the actual moment when he made seemingly antagonistic comments towards Chief Cossette to Deputy ChiefTopulos (Recording, Pick Up Medication From Vehicle). According to him, Cpt. Gaynor remembered reading the passage and thinking, "that's not the way that it happened. That isn't what I said and that's not what I meant at all" (Recording, Part 2, 20:14- 20:20). Correspondance

I have been assigned as a member of the Internal Affairs Office of the Meriden Police Department since March of 2016 and a member of the Meriden Police Department since February of 2006. At all times, Cpt. Gaynor has not only been afforded access to my business contact information but also that of my personal contact information. Should he have wished, Cpt. Gaynor knew how to contact me in order to provide the recordings that he decidedly withheld. Three examples of Cpt. Gaynor's wish to open dialogue with me are presented within this case file; an April 19, 2017 email and two text messages dated April 13 and April 15, 2017 respectively. Cpt. Gaynor has had regular contact with City officials and his union body representatives throughout the duration oflnternal Affairs Investigation # 16-42. Although generally accepted, should it be found necessary, supporting documentation can be presented upon request.

Policy

The Meriden Police Department does have a policy that governs untruthfulness (MPD General Order 1.0). Below is an excerpt from that policy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PURPOSE: To establish a written directive, which requires all officers to take an oath of office / oath of honor and abide by a canon of ethics, prior to assuming sworn status. POLICY: It is the policy of the Meriden Police Department that all officers will take an oath of office I oath of honor prior to assuming sworn status, and that they will abide by a canon and code of police ethics. The Chief of Police will administer the oath to all sworn employees. RELATIONSHIP TO MISSION AND VALUES: An oath is universally recognized as a solemn pledge. Public trust, confidence and support are essential if the Department is to fulfill its commitment to the citizens of Meriden. Sincere commitment to an oath can provide vital guidance to officers during their career, especially when faced with difficult choices. Such commitment can also provide a moral anchor and a solid, emotional foundation that can endure 9

the test of time. Officers must always behave in an ethical manner by sincerely abiding by this pledge to win the public's trust, confidence and support.

PROCEDURE: 1.0.1

LEGAL AUTHORITY

Sworn members of the Meriden Police Department shall support and uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Connecticut; laws and statutes of the United States and the State of Connecticut; the Charter and ordinances of the City of Meriden; and the policies and procedures and Standards of Conduct of the Meriden Police Depaiiment. The sworn members of the Meriden Police Department derive their power and authority from state and local law, as provided for in the General Statutes of the State of Connecticut and the Charter of the City of Meriden. Title 54 of the Connecticut General Statutes (Chapters 959* through 960*) details the legal authority of Connecticut law enforcement officers. Sworn officers of the Meriden Police Department shall enforce all state and federal laws, including the ordinances of the City of Meriden.

1.0.2

OATH OF OFFICE/OATH OF HONOR

1.0.3

LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE OF ETHICS/UNTRUTHFULNESS

All employees of the Meriden Police Department are required to abide and uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct and share equally in the Department's commitment to its mission, goals and objectives. All sworn members shall abide by and are bound by the spirit and intent of all adopted codes of conduct. Therefore, all officers of the Meriden Police Department shall abide by the IACP Law Enforcement Code a/Ethics, a copy of which appears as Appendix B. In compliance with professional law enforcement ethics, sworn members of the Meriden Police Department are expected to be fully truthful and honest in all their dealings (when duty dictates). Sworn members shall not engage in lies or evasive half:truths that mislead or do not fully inform those who must depend upon their honesty. Sworn members must understand that courts focus on the overt duty of law enforcement officers to always be truthful as demanded by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

One of the prime essential functions of a police officer is being able to tell the truth. Once a -----poliee-offieer'-s-eharacter,integrity,and/or-rnputation-have-been-compromised-or-sullied;-his/he ability to render credible and effective testimony in court, or before boards and/or commissions, is likely to be impeached. Untruthful law enforcement officers taint the entire criminal justice system and the public's perceptions of our profession. Untruthfulness undermines the public's trust and confidence in our Police Department and is therefore contrary to our mission. Members are warned that overt acts of deception, omission, untruthfulness, or major acts of unethical behavior may lead to termination and decertification.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Summary

As officers of the law, we are trained as to the importance of carefully preserving the custody and integrity of evidence. Evidence, in and of itself, can take on the shape of many forms. Ranging from video surveillance to latent fingerprints, investigators are trained to scrutinize and analyze this information as it can either confirm or refute testimonials and help form an impartial re-creation of events for fmiher assessment. Although Cpt. Gaynor claims that he was never reminded of the fact that he was in possession of two surreptitiously obtained recordings, he did discover them of his own accord, on at least March 27, 2017 (the day he emailed himself the Adm in Leave audio file) and April I 4, 20 I 7 (the day he emailed himself the Pick Up Medication From Vehicle audio file). Notwithstanding, Cpt. Gaynor manufactured the recordings and was in constant possession of them from the moment they were created on September 2, 2016 and September 6, 2016 to present day. 11

The Internal Affairs Division of the Meriden Police Department, specifically myself, was enlisted by City Manager Guy Scaiffe to conduct an investigation as to whether or not Cpl. Gaynor had been in violation of department policy as it would pe1iain to the allegations he filed against Chief Cossette on September I, 2016 (IA Case # I 6-42). That investigation was submitted to (R) Chief Reynolds on April 11, 2017. On May 19,2017 (R) Chief Reynolds convened a Loudermill Hearing pertaining to the content of IA Case# 16-42. From the time the investigation was initiated (December 20, 20 I 6) to the time in which it was submitted (April 11, 2017), as was stated by Cpt. Gaynor, I was not provided with any audio recordings. Despite Cpt. Gaynor's belief that the recordings would have no bearing on a closed investigation, I do not believe an investigation that has formed a conclusion is immune from new and relevant information. This sentiment is a founding philosophy behind criminal defense projects used to exonerate wrongly convicted individuals across the country (www.innocenceproject.org). Cpt. Gaynor had emailed himself one of the audio recordings (Admin Leave) on March 27, 2017; approximately two weeks before I submitted a final report to (R) Chief Reynolds. To state that he (Cpl. Gaynor) did not remember that he had the recording of his placement on paid administrative leave until after the conclusion of Internal Affairs Investigation (# 16-42) is not chronologically consistent. In-part Cpt. Gaynor alleged that the way in which he was placed on administrative leave created an undue embarrassment. I have no doubt that Cpt. Gaynor felt embarrassed as he was placed on administrative leave on September 2, 2016. I do, however, contend that Cpt. Gaynor may have contributed to his own embarrassment; more than he would like to admit. In the face of conflicting testimonials of that day, the recording in which Cpl. Gaynor possessed (titled Adm in Leave) is the most accurate, available, and impaiiial record of events as they transpired that day. This recording may bear the value of partially excusing the culpability of others involved in Cpt. Gaynor's allegation that his placement on administrative leave on September 2, 2016 was somehow inappropriate. I believe that Cpl. Gaynor should have recognized the implicit value of the recording and allowed for an appropriate authority to determine how to proceed with the new information. This did not occur. I find little doubt that Cpl. Gaynor knew of the content of the recordings for which he manufactured, retained, and possessed on September 2, and September 6, 2016. While Cpt. Gaynor maintains that his non-submission of audio recordings was an act of forgetfulness and a lack of recognition for the audio recordings' relevancy to any investigation, I believe that an alternate perspective may be considered. Therefore, I find that there exists, by preponderance of the evidence, sufficient proof to reasonably conclude that Cpt. Gaynor withheld evidence in. connection with an investigation that was conducted by the Law Offices ofBerchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C., and furthermore, 12

converted the evidence for his personal use which may be a violation of Meriden Police Department Standards of Conduct 1.2.31B.6, subsection B, item 23: 23. Property and Evidence: No member of the Department shall destroy, conceal, remove, falsify, manufacture, tamper with, withhold, or conveti to his/her own use any property or evidence in connection with an investigation or other police action, except in accordance with established Department practices and procedures. Under no circumstances will property be stored in an officer's locker or in any other manner that would compromise the chain of custody or subject the property to the risk of theft or damage. I also find that there exists, by a preponderance of evidence, sufficient proof to reasonably conclude that Cpt. Gaynor may have withheld evidence as an act of deception, an omission, and in furtherance of untruthfulness for his portrayal in which he was placed on administrative leave on September 2, 2016; a violation of MPD General Order 1.0. and Department Standards of Conduct 1.2.31B, subsection B, items I, 2, 3, 5, & 12: _ _ _ _ __]__ _ Gonduct-lJ11becomi11g-an-Employee:-Any-violatio11-of-the-S-tandards-of-eonduct,8eneraÂˇ'-- - - - Orders, Special Orders, Written Directives, Memoranda, lawful orders, or any conduct or activities, on or off duty, which tends to undermine the good order, efficiency and effectiveness of operation, mission, and discipline of the Depatiment which brings discredit upon the Depatiment or any member of the Department even though such conduct is not specifically set fotih in these guidelines, shall constitute "Conduct Unbecoming an Hmp{oyee. " 2. Accountability, Responsibility, and Discipline: Officers are directly accountable fotÂˇ their actions through the chain of command, up to the Chief of Police. Officers shall cooperate fully in any internal administrative investigation conducted by this or any other authorized agency and shall provide complete and accurate information in regard to any issue under investigation. Officers shall be accurate, complete, and truthful in all matters. Officers shall accept full responsibility for their actions without attempting to conceal, divert or mitigate their true culpability. Officers shall not engage in efforts to thwart, influence, or interfere with an internal or criminal investigation. 3. Violation of General Orders, Rules and Directives: Members of the Meriden Police Department shall observe and comply with the lawful orders, directives and expectations (e.g., work rules, policies, procedures, and practices) established for the effective, efficient and safe operation of the police department. 5. Dishonesty or Untruthfulness: Members of the Meriden Police Department shall not lie, give misleading information or half-truths, or falsify written or verbal communications in official reports or in their statements or actions with supervisors, another person, or other agency when it is reasonable to expect that such information may be relied upon because of the member's position as a police officer with this Depatiment. Untruthfulness may lead to decetiification by the Police Officer Standards and Training Council (POSTC). 13

" 12. Unsatisfactory Peiforma11ce: Employees shall maintain sufficient compelency to properly perform their duties and assume the responsibilities of their position. Personnel shall perform their duties in a manner which will maintain the highest standards of efficiency in carrying out the functions of their position and the objectives of the Meriden Police Department. Unsatisfactory performance may be demonstrated by a lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be enforced; an unwillingness or inability to perform assigned tasks; the failure to conform to work standards established for the employee's rank, grade or position; the failure to take appropriate action during the investigation of a crime or incident deserving police action; or absence without leave including willful abuse of sick time. In addition to other indicia of unsatisfactory performance, the following will be considered primafacia evidence of unsatisfactory performance: repeated poor evaluations or a written record of repeated violations of policies, procedures, or directives.

Respectfully Submitted,

~herF~~//~ Sergeant, Internal Affairs