HARTFORD, CT - Several months ago, a state audit in Connecticut found a large number of Connecticut State police troopers allegedly falsified traffic stop data relative to the state’s racial profiling statistic system. It is unknown what accountability, if any, troopers found to have intentionally falsified data will face.
However, another group, the CT Mirror reports, has received minimal attention and was also included in the audit. That group is hundreds of constables, and the audit discovered there was a “high likelihood” they, too, had falsified racial data.
In Connecticut, state troopers are overseen by the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, while constables are municipal employees. They typically work in small towns without organized police departments and act as local officers.
The constables are municipal employees and work under the direction of resident state troopers employed by DESPP, who manage them on a daily basis. Regarding internal affairs investigations, they are treated like their counterparts with the State Police.
After the audit was released, multiple agencies became involved in the subsequent inquiries—the Department of Justice, the Department of Transportation, the chief state’s attorney, the office of Gov. Ned Lamont (D), and state legislators.
While officials with the Connecticut State Police are conducting their own investigation, their focus has been on the over 100 troopers identified by auditors as having “significant discrepancies” in the data they submitted.
However, one issue has come forth in that the CSP has yet to announce any plans to investigate constables, with elected officials in some of those towns reporting they have yet to hear about any investigation from DESPP.
That has initiated concern among some municipal officials if constables implicated in wrongdoing will face consequences. And, with the looming retirements of DESPP Commissioner James Rovella and Col. Stavros Mellekas, who heads the Connecticut State Police, answers to those questions remain muddy at best.
“At some point, somebody’s going to need to drill down on them and figure out what happened. Same thing as they’re trying to figure out for the State Police,” said Ken Barone, co-author of the audit.
“Was this intentional? Was it a human error? Or was it a training issue? Was it a technical issue? And then what do you do about it? But they certainly can’t go without scrutiny because the discrepancies are too large.”
The audit, compiled by the Connecticut Racial Profiling Prohibition Project, collected statewide data on race and ethnicity from people stopped by police for traffic stops.
The audit compiled by the team of researchers was released in June, where over 800,000 infractions were reported by 1,301 troopers between 2014 and 2021. Auditors discovered three main concerns with the data: falsified records, overreported records, and underreported records.
Falsified records were defined as not involving an actual traffic stop. Overreported records were recorded in the state’s racial profiling database but not in the court system or the Centralized Infraction Bureau.
Meanwhile, underreported reports were those found in the court system but not in the racial profiling data.
Auditors used what was described as “extremely loose” criteria yet were unable to corroborate 24,966 stops submitted to the racial profiling database by troopers while reporting the number of falsified records could top 58,553.
The Mirror wrote that overreported infractions, which could possibly have criminal implications, were likely to involve white non-Hispanic drivers. Troopers’ underreported infractions, a violation of state law, more often than not included black or Hispanic motorists.
Over three hundred troopers—311 to be exact—had “significant discrepancies,” which was eventually shaved down to 130 to “better hone the analysis” of those troopers with the “most significant” inaccuracies.
After that number was carved down to 130, state police officials launched an investigation into those troopers, promising to “dig into those names, exonerate those who are falsely alleged, but pursue those who are falsifying these documents.” They emphasized the fact that nobody received a fake ticket.
Still, constables have thus far flown under the radar, with officials refusing to answer questions about whether they will be investigated. While constables only contribute under five percent of all stops reported by police, their data still had discrepancies.
“The agency will not be speaking on these matters as they relate to both ongoing investigations and pending litigation,” a DESPP spokesperson told the CT Mirror in response to an email request for information.
Among constables, auditors found 7,427 overreported traffic stops among that group—records that were “most likely” falsified, they said. Out of 373 constables examined, 62% had at least one overreported record between 2014 and 2021, the audit found.
Twenty constables overreported more than 100 racial profiling records, which accounted for 57% of all overreported records among that group of officers. Sixty-three constables had “the most significant” discrepancies.
Identifying underreported records was a more difficult task since assessing their badge numbers proved difficult. However, evaluating the available data led auditors to decide the underreported records required additional scrutiny. According to Barone, he said he has no knowledge of further evaluation of constables having taken place.
Any internal investigations of constables are conducted by the Connecticut State Police, who then pass along findings to the respective municipality. It is then up to the municipal leadership to decide what to do with that information.
Those steps could include the municipal leadership terminating the constable and requesting their police certification be revoked, which would have to be accomplished by the Police Officer Standards and Training Council (POST-C).
It doesn’t appear any such action will be happening at any time in the near future. The Connecticut Post reached out to several first selectmen, including towns with the most constables, and all have said they have yet to receive any information from the CSP regarding investigations into their constables. Some don’t believe that information will come soon.
“If it were to be investigated and there was to be proven that there was wrongdoing, we would address it,” Jeff Manville, Southbury's first selectman, said. “I’m not worried about that at all here in Southbury. I mean, maybe it’s a little naïve on my part, I’m not sure. But I’ve known a lot of these officers…We have a very community-oriented police department. There really has been a great bunch of people.”
The recent controversy follows a report from last summer, where Hearst Connecticut Media Group discovered that in 2018, four state troopers allegedly fabricated hundreds of traffic stop tickets to get better assignments, pay increases, promotions, and specialty vehicles. It is that report that spurred the current audit in question.
First selectmen interviewed by the Mirror said their respective towns don’t reward constables for their productivity. Therefore, they don’t believe concerns that constables may be submitting bogus racial profiling data for personal gain exists.
“I think the investigation will figure it out. If there’s any of that here, I’d be surprised. But I don’t have any context or knowledge of any of that here,” said John Hall, Westbrook’s first selectman. “I would hope they would keep me in the loop on it. But it is an investigation being handled by the higher-ups.”
One issue is that some towns have hired constables who recently retired as state troopers. That could complicate the issue.
For example, last July, Rolling Stone reported a retired state trooper named Robert S. Hart, previously assigned to Troop F in Westbrook, had amassed 1,350 overreported records over four years before he retired in 2017.
The CT Mirror identified a constable, Robert Hart, who works in Essex. While Hart didn’t respond to requests for comment, Essex's first selectman, Norm Needleman, confirmed he is one and the same.
However, another group, the CT Mirror reports, has received minimal attention and was also included in the audit. That group is hundreds of constables, and the audit discovered there was a “high likelihood” they, too, had falsified racial data.
In Connecticut, state troopers are overseen by the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, while constables are municipal employees. They typically work in small towns without organized police departments and act as local officers.
The constables are municipal employees and work under the direction of resident state troopers employed by DESPP, who manage them on a daily basis. Regarding internal affairs investigations, they are treated like their counterparts with the State Police.
After the audit was released, multiple agencies became involved in the subsequent inquiries—the Department of Justice, the Department of Transportation, the chief state’s attorney, the office of Gov. Ned Lamont (D), and state legislators.
While officials with the Connecticut State Police are conducting their own investigation, their focus has been on the over 100 troopers identified by auditors as having “significant discrepancies” in the data they submitted.
However, one issue has come forth in that the CSP has yet to announce any plans to investigate constables, with elected officials in some of those towns reporting they have yet to hear about any investigation from DESPP.
That has initiated concern among some municipal officials if constables implicated in wrongdoing will face consequences. And, with the looming retirements of DESPP Commissioner James Rovella and Col. Stavros Mellekas, who heads the Connecticut State Police, answers to those questions remain muddy at best.
“At some point, somebody’s going to need to drill down on them and figure out what happened. Same thing as they’re trying to figure out for the State Police,” said Ken Barone, co-author of the audit.
“Was this intentional? Was it a human error? Or was it a training issue? Was it a technical issue? And then what do you do about it? But they certainly can’t go without scrutiny because the discrepancies are too large.”
The audit, compiled by the Connecticut Racial Profiling Prohibition Project, collected statewide data on race and ethnicity from people stopped by police for traffic stops.
The audit compiled by the team of researchers was released in June, where over 800,000 infractions were reported by 1,301 troopers between 2014 and 2021. Auditors discovered three main concerns with the data: falsified records, overreported records, and underreported records.
Falsified records were defined as not involving an actual traffic stop. Overreported records were recorded in the state’s racial profiling database but not in the court system or the Centralized Infraction Bureau.
Meanwhile, underreported reports were those found in the court system but not in the racial profiling data.
Auditors used what was described as “extremely loose” criteria yet were unable to corroborate 24,966 stops submitted to the racial profiling database by troopers while reporting the number of falsified records could top 58,553.
The Mirror wrote that overreported infractions, which could possibly have criminal implications, were likely to involve white non-Hispanic drivers. Troopers’ underreported infractions, a violation of state law, more often than not included black or Hispanic motorists.
Over three hundred troopers—311 to be exact—had “significant discrepancies,” which was eventually shaved down to 130 to “better hone the analysis” of those troopers with the “most significant” inaccuracies.
After that number was carved down to 130, state police officials launched an investigation into those troopers, promising to “dig into those names, exonerate those who are falsely alleged, but pursue those who are falsifying these documents.” They emphasized the fact that nobody received a fake ticket.
Still, constables have thus far flown under the radar, with officials refusing to answer questions about whether they will be investigated. While constables only contribute under five percent of all stops reported by police, their data still had discrepancies.
“The agency will not be speaking on these matters as they relate to both ongoing investigations and pending litigation,” a DESPP spokesperson told the CT Mirror in response to an email request for information.
Among constables, auditors found 7,427 overreported traffic stops among that group—records that were “most likely” falsified, they said. Out of 373 constables examined, 62% had at least one overreported record between 2014 and 2021, the audit found.
Twenty constables overreported more than 100 racial profiling records, which accounted for 57% of all overreported records among that group of officers. Sixty-three constables had “the most significant” discrepancies.
Identifying underreported records was a more difficult task since assessing their badge numbers proved difficult. However, evaluating the available data led auditors to decide the underreported records required additional scrutiny. According to Barone, he said he has no knowledge of further evaluation of constables having taken place.
Any internal investigations of constables are conducted by the Connecticut State Police, who then pass along findings to the respective municipality. It is then up to the municipal leadership to decide what to do with that information.
Those steps could include the municipal leadership terminating the constable and requesting their police certification be revoked, which would have to be accomplished by the Police Officer Standards and Training Council (POST-C).
It doesn’t appear any such action will be happening at any time in the near future. The Connecticut Post reached out to several first selectmen, including towns with the most constables, and all have said they have yet to receive any information from the CSP regarding investigations into their constables. Some don’t believe that information will come soon.
“If it were to be investigated and there was to be proven that there was wrongdoing, we would address it,” Jeff Manville, Southbury's first selectman, said. “I’m not worried about that at all here in Southbury. I mean, maybe it’s a little naïve on my part, I’m not sure. But I’ve known a lot of these officers…We have a very community-oriented police department. There really has been a great bunch of people.”
The recent controversy follows a report from last summer, where Hearst Connecticut Media Group discovered that in 2018, four state troopers allegedly fabricated hundreds of traffic stop tickets to get better assignments, pay increases, promotions, and specialty vehicles. It is that report that spurred the current audit in question.
First selectmen interviewed by the Mirror said their respective towns don’t reward constables for their productivity. Therefore, they don’t believe concerns that constables may be submitting bogus racial profiling data for personal gain exists.
“I think the investigation will figure it out. If there’s any of that here, I’d be surprised. But I don’t have any context or knowledge of any of that here,” said John Hall, Westbrook’s first selectman. “I would hope they would keep me in the loop on it. But it is an investigation being handled by the higher-ups.”
One issue is that some towns have hired constables who recently retired as state troopers. That could complicate the issue.
For example, last July, Rolling Stone reported a retired state trooper named Robert S. Hart, previously assigned to Troop F in Westbrook, had amassed 1,350 overreported records over four years before he retired in 2017.
The CT Mirror identified a constable, Robert Hart, who works in Essex. While Hart didn’t respond to requests for comment, Essex's first selectman, Norm Needleman, confirmed he is one and the same.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments