Prosecutor: Old Saybrook police body-camera program not criminal

OLD SAYBROOK — The Police Department’s controversial use of body cameras does not warrant criminal charges, according to the Middlesex County State’s Attorney’s Office.

The news comes after it was found the agency could access footage from officers’ body cameras even if officers had not pressed a button to activate recording.

The state’s attorney’s office, which is headed by prosecutor Michael Gailor, “looked into the matter and has determined that no criminal charges are appropriate in this case,” spokesperson Alaine Griffin said in a statement.

But police union leader Ronald Suraci, who has raised privacy concerns about Old Saybrook’s practices, questioned how thoroughly prosecutors reviewed the matter and called for the release of any relevant investigative reports.

“I would like to see the investigation, or the report, or what they actually did to look into this issue,” said Suraci, the regional director of UPSEUCOPS, a union representing multiple police forces including Old Saybrook.

Griffin did not provide additional comments in response to follow-up inquiries about Suraci’s statements.

Suraci has told the New Haven Register that Old Saybrook officers were not told their body cameras captured video of their entire shifts.

Police body cameras are designed to constantly capture soundless footage in a mode known as “passive recording.” However, many departments record over the video every 30 to 60 seconds, saving it only when an officer presses the activation button; upon activation, the cameras begin capturing sound as well as video.

Some departments, including Old Saybrook, can access additional passive recording data. That technology does not appear to be common among police departments in the state.

The town has said passive recordings of officers’ shifts are not uploaded to the cloud and get taped

over when the camera is reused.

Late last month, First Selectman Carl Fortuna said the passive recording technology was common among police departments and believed town officers knew or should have known about it. He made those conclusions after investigating the matter, he said.

Suraci would like to see the written report documenting Fortuna’s investigation, he said. In a statement Monday, Fortuna said there was no report and that his investigation consisted of two phone inquiries.

Fortuna and Chief of Police Michael Spera have been asked whether they had any written materials showing Police Department members were notified of the full extent of the body cameras’ capabilities. Spera acknowledged a March 31 Freedom of Information request for those records. He had not fulfilled it by Monday afternoon.

Meanwhile, two town

officers told the Register they only learned about the cameras’ passive recording capabilities following the arrest of Joshua Zarbo, a former Old Saybrook patrolman accused of using police resources to try to get personal information on a woman he had seen shopping.

Zarbo has pleaded not guilty to a charge of a computer crime and applied for accelerated rehabilitation. His case has been statutorily sealed, but his application was expected to be granted on Tuesday, according to Richard Lynch, an attorney for the firm Lynch, Traub, Keefe & Errante, which is representing Zarbo in court.

When building a case against Zarbo, the Old Saybrook Police Department used passive footage from his body camera in his arrest warrant affidavit. Lynch has said Zarbo did not know he was being recorded.

A reporter asked Lynch for comment on the Middlesex State’s Attorney’s Office’s conclusion that criminal charges were not appropriate in connection with Old Saybrook’s

body-camera program.

“State’s Attorney Michael Gailor is a top-notch prosecutor and I will defer to him in using his discretion in pursuing or not pursuing criminal charges,” Lynch said in an email.

Yet he hoped the town had changed its practices.

“Hopefully Old Saybrook has learned a lesson from this fiasco and has modified its program so as not to continuously collect information when that collection is inappropriate, including but not limited to during bathroom breaks, private encounters with citizens and family, when in medical facilities/courts and when in the presence of defendants who are talking with their lawyers,” he said.

It is unclear whether the town has made any such changes. When asked, Fortuna said in an email that such adjustments were an “operational decision for the OSPD.”

Spera did not return requests for comment.