CCFOI opposes Section 4 of SB 1436, which is designed to shield records of formal complaints against police officers from public disclosure until they are investigated and adjudicated. This provision could allow law enforcement agencies to indefinitely withhold records of police misconduct, undermining public accountability and transparency.
See Michele Jacklin’s full testimony below.
SB 1436, AN ACT CONCERNING POLICE DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Judiciary Committee
March 7, 2025
Sen. Winfield, Rep. Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein and Honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee:
My name is Michele Jacklin and I am co-president of the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information (CCFOI). We are a 70-year-old organization comprised of CT news media outlets and First Amendment supporters. Our mission is to advocate and promote government transparency, public access, a strong Freedom of Information law and other measures that guarantee the rights of individuals and journalists under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the state Constitution.
CCFOI opposes Section 4 of SB 1436, which is designed to shield records of formal complaints against police officers from public disclosure until they are investigated and adjudicated. This provision could allow law enforcement agencies to indefinitely withhold records of police misconduct, undermining public accountability and transparency.
Public confidence in law enforcement officials is of paramount importance in a civil and just society. In that vein, this bill – with the exception of Section 4 – strengthens police data reporting.
However, Section 4 could undermine the public’s trust by enabling law enforcement authorities to hide complaints from public view. Indeed, if an officer were to retire or resign before a complaint is investigated and adjudicated, the public might never know the details leading up to a decision. What’s more, the language in the bill leaves to the imagination what constitutes “adjudication” as well as the identity of the “proper legal authority.” Also, other provisions in state law stipulate that complaints of criminal conducts are records that must be disclosed.
There are several recent examples where the airing of complaints of police misconduct served to reinforce the public’s confidence in the system. In January, it was announced to great fanfare that a police captain in Philadelphia was going to be named the new chief of police in Hartford. The mayor of Hartford heaped praise on him. Subsequently, the public learned that the captain, Tyrell McCoy, had withdrawn as an applicant for Hartford’s top job. If he was such a sterling candidate, why did he withdraw? Citizens were mystified. It turned out that sexual harassment allegations had been lodged against McCoy by fellow officers and five civilian complaints were pending. At the time, all of the complaints were active and under investigation.
The Old Saybrook Police Department has a long and disturbing history of not complying with FOI requests. Town residents are often in the dark because of the shroud hanging over the department.
In June 2024, East Lyme Police Chief Michael Finkelstein was suspended and put on paid leave after his arrest on domestic violence charges. Fortunately, First Selectman Dan Cunningham released information about the internal affairs investigation related to the arrest, saying, “Preserving the public trust in our police force requires that a certain amount of information concerning the investigation be provided to the public. Attempting to hide the names of the two senior officers being investigated is not in the public interest.”
Cunningham was correct. Transparency and accountability are absolutely crucial when it comes to law enforcement and maintaining the public’s trust. To that end, CCFOI urges removal of Section 4 to ensure continued transparency and accountability in police operations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Michele Jacklin
CCFOI Co-President