New Haven Register (New Haven, CT)
Town declines to release suit settlement
OLD SAYBROOK — A civil lawsuit that alleged a police dog bit a woman after an officer tackled her to the ground has been settled, federal court records show, but the town won’t release the settlement.
Police denied wrongdoing in court filings on the lawsuit, but First Selectman Carl Fortuna has declined to provide a copy of the settlement, a move that is bringing criticism from public records advocates.
The federal lawsuit filed in June 2020 alleged that a local woman, whom police said evaded arrest following a 2019 dispute with a relative, was bitten by a police dog in the bathroom at a local marina, court records show.
After the lawsuit was settled, Fortuna denied a Feb. 2 records request for a copy of the settlement on
the grounds the town was “not in possession” of it, saying in an email that it was in the custody of an attorney.
“I don’t have copies and we don’t keep them here so I don’t intend to ask for copies,” Fortuna told a reporter in a follow-up email.
Fortuna also said in an email that no one “employed by the town” has seen the settlement.
Asked about the attorney in custody of it, Fortuna said the Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency, which serves as Old Saybrook’s insurance company, hires a law firm to represent the town.
In an unrelated case in 2016, the town of Enfield denied requests for records detailing settlements in police lawsuits, saying it did not maintain records kept by an attorney and CIRMA. The denials were appealed, and the following year the state Freedom of Information Commission twice adopted recommendations ordering Enfield to release the records on the basis the town “owned” or “used” them, and was entitled to obtain the records from the attorney.
After researching the Enfield decision, Thomas Hennick, spokesman for the FOIC, said it appeared to be good case law and “was not overturned.”
“If they’ve never had them and they’ve never seen them and they’ve never had any use for them ... it might be arguable that they’re not records that were ever public records,” he said of the Old Saybrook matter. “What’s clear is you can’t take documents like that and hand them to the attorney and say, ‘We’re not gonna give them out.’”
Under state statute, CIRMA records are not subject to the FOIA. But in this case, David Schulz, who runs the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School, suggested in a phone interview it doesn’t matter if an attorney or even the insurance company has Old Saybrook’s settlement because they “are acting as agents for the town.”
“It’s clearly repugnant to the Freedom of Information Act … they’re attempting to avoid their legal obligations,” said Schulz. “They have control over those documents and they have a legal obligation to make them available under FOIA... Somebody at the town has the authority to call up and say, ‘I need a copy of that.’”
Fortuna did not return a request to respond to the comments made by Schulz.
Chief of Police Michael Spera did not return media inquiries about the lawsuit and whether the allegations in the lawsuit resulted in disciplinary action. A Feb. 9 New Haven Register request for body camera footage of the incident and other records remains pending.
The federal lawsuit filed in June 2020 alleged that a local woman, whom police said evaded arrest following a 2019 dispute with a relative, was bitten by a police dog in the bathroom at a local marina, court records show.
The lawsuit
Both parties agreed in federal court filings that on Aug. 31, 2019, plaintiff Danielle Dilley was in the restroom at a local marina when police Sgt. Stephen Hackett and Officer Tyler Schulz, who were named as defendants with the town of Old Saybrook, entered that facility.
Schulz did not return multiple requests for comment, and Hackett declined comment.
But in court, the defense claimed Dilley had evaded police following an alleged dispute with a relative, “resisted arrest and refused to comply with lawful orders, resulting in a bite from a patrol K9 after multiple warnings,” according to a court report summarizing both sides’ arguments.
Dilley, however, claimed she was not committing any crimes and contended police did not have reasonable suspicion to follow her into the bathroom, per her amended complaint, which was filed last summer in federal district court.
She alleged Hackett ordered her to exit the bathroom and tackled her when she said she had to use the facilities, according to the amended complaint, which accused Schulz of entering the restroom and using “excessive and unreasonable force against the Plaintiff by allowing his canine to bite” her twice in the thigh while she was “pinned to the floor.”
The lawsuit also accused Hackett of failing to intervene.
Those allegations were all denied in the defendants’ answer to the lawsuit, which claimed Dilley was not tackled or ordered to leave the bathroom. It was filed with the court in July by attorney David Yale.
Tony Sheffy, Dilley’s attorney, said he could not comment on “any aspect of” the lawsuit.
Dilley’s civil lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice after being “settled in full,” according to the federal court docket.
Asked for comment on the lawsuit, Fortuna wrote an email to the Register contending that “allegations in a lawsuit are just that: allegations.”
“Because a lawsuit is settled doesn’t mean wrongdoing necessarily occurred,” he wrote.
Fortuna would not provide information on whether disciplinary action against the officers was taken.