Opinion
No. 3:17-CR-159-7 (VLB)
12-05-2019
UNITED STATES, v. NORTHRUP, et al.
H. Gordon Hall, U.S. Attorney's Office, New Haven, CT, for United States. Jonathan J. Einhorn, Law Office of Jonathan J. Einhorn, New Haven, CT, for Denise Hernandez. Peter J. Schaffer, Attorney at Law, Stamford, CT, for Rigoberto Hernandez. Michael Moscowitz, Law Office of Michael L. Moscowitz LLC, New haven, CT, for Shane Blake. Vito A. Castignoli, Law Office of Vito A. Castignoli, Milford, CT, for Omar Rivera. Robert F. Kappes, Silvester & Daly, New London, CT, for Calvin Vaughn. Cheryl E. Heffernan, Farver & Heffernan, Hamden, CT, for Ernest White.
H. Gordon Hall, U.S. Attorney's Office, New Haven, CT, for United States.
Jonathan J. Einhorn, Law Office of Jonathan J. Einhorn, New Haven, CT, for Denise Hernandez.
Peter J. Schaffer, Attorney at Law, Stamford, CT, for Rigoberto Hernandez.
Michael Moscowitz, Law Office of Michael L. Moscowitz LLC, New haven, CT, for Shane Blake.
Vito A. Castignoli, Law Office of Vito A. Castignoli, Milford, CT, for Omar Rivera.
Robert F. Kappes, Silvester & Daly, New London, CT, for Calvin Vaughn.
Cheryl E. Heffernan, Farver & Heffernan, Hamden, CT, for Ernest White.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S [ECF NO. 592] ORDER TO PROVIDE GOOD CAUSE FOR SEALING DOCUMENTS AS TO DEFENDANT ANTHONY MIRANDA, [ECF NO. 594]
Vanessa L. Bryant, United States District Judge Background
On September 13, 2019, three days before the Government's case against Defendant Antonio Miranda was to proceed to jury selection and trial, the Government filed a sealed motion seeking the Court's opinion whether information regarding a police officer witness the Government intended to call at trial needed to be disclosed to the defense. [ECF No. 576]. On September 17, 2019, the Court answered the Government's question in the affirmative. [ECF No. 583]. Jury Selection was held the same day. [ECF No. 586]. On September 18, 2019, the Government filed another sealed motion informing the court that it no longer intended to call the police officer as a witness, asking the Court to maintain the information regarding the officer witness sealed, and asking the Court to allow the Government to disclose the information in question to the defense and to the New Britain State's Attorney's Office, which has jurisdiction over the police officer's department. [ECF No. 588]. The Government's request did not state and the court could not divine the facts from which it could make the particularized findings that the material should be sealed.
On September 19, 2019, the Government moved to dismiss the case against Defendant Miranda, [ECF No. 589], which the Court granted on September 24, 2019. [ECF No. 590]. That same day the Court denied the Government's motion to maintain information about the police officer witness under seal without prejudice and ordered the Government "to provide to the Court, by 09/27/30, information sufficient to allow the Court to make ‘particularized findings’ that ‘the presumption of access to the particular document is outweighed by countervailing factors in favor of sealing.’ " [ECF No. 592 (quoting D. Conn. L. Crim. R. 57(b)(3)(A) ]. On September 26, 2019, the Government responded to the Court's Order. [ECF No. 594]. Based on the record before the Court the Government's motion is DENIED for the reasons stated below.
Legal Standard
"It is well established that the public and the press have a qualified First Amendment right to ... access certain judicial documents." Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga , 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006). A document is a "judicial document to which the public has a presumptive right of access under the common law" if it "is relevant to the performance of a judicial function and useful to the judicial process." D. Conn. L. Crim. R. 57(b)(3)(A). A court may seal a judicial document or a portion thereof only where the movant shows sealing is "essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Matter of N.Y. Times Co. , 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987). When doing so, a "court may seal a document ... only if it makes particularized findings on the record that the presumption of access to the particular document is outweighed by countervailing factors in favor of sealing, such as the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency, and privacy interests." D. Conn. L. Crim. R. 57(b)(3)(A).
Analysis
The Government requested the Court to inform it as to whether it had to disclose to the defense information concerning Officer James Wozniak of the New Britain Police Department, whom the Government intended to call to testify at trial. [ECF No. 576]. That information consisted of police department records of an internal investigation into a civilian complaint of a warrantless search and arrest made by Officer Wozniak and the disciplinary proceedings which followed. The complainant alleged Officer Wozniak conducted a warrantless search of a driver, an occupant of a vehicle and the driver's vehicle without consent, in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. [ECF No. 576-1]. In his incident report, Officer Wozniak represented the driver consented to the search, writing "consent was the legal authority used to conduct a warrantless search of the accused's person and vehicle." [ECF No. 576-1 at 1]. The investigation revealed recordings of the incident which showed Officer Wozniak did not have consent and his incident report was false.
In ruling that the Government had to inform the defense about this witness, the Court stated that "[t]he material is exculpatory as it impeaches the credibility of Officer Wozniak because he falsely claimed he was given consent to search the driver, occupant of the vehicle and the vehicle itself." [ECF No. 583 at 1]. The Court also found the New Britain Police Department investigation disingenuous because it "concluded [Officer] Wozniak did not falsify or lie in his police report" despite finding Officer Wozniak's search and arrest illegal because it was done without consent and Officer Wozniak's incident report misrepresented that consent was the legal authority for the search. [ECF No. 583 at 2]. The Chief of Police stated Officer Wozniak told the truth but failed to note that he did so only after his dishonesty was revealed conclusively by the investigation. [ECF No. 576-1 at 11-13].
The Government wants to maintain this information sealed, citing Officer Wozniak's "privacy interest in maintaining the confidentiality of these records and characterizations of them." [ECF No. 594 at 3]. The Government also argues that these documents are no longer "judicial documents to which the public has a presumptive right of access under the common law" because "the matter has been resolved, [and] the officer will not be called as a witness"; thus, they are not "relevant to the performance of a judicial function and useful to the judicial process." Id. (quoting D. Conn. L. Crim. R. 57(b)(3)(A)).
While the Court acknowledges that Officer Wozniak might not want the information unsealed, the Government cites no authority establishing an officer's right to the privacy of internal investigations and police proceedings resulting in a finding of the officer's misconduct in the performance of an official duty. On the contrary, the public has a right to know how its government functions and as a general proposition records of public proceedings are open to public inspection.
Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or Regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2)
copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-210(a). A police department is a public agency and its records are public records. See Kaloidis v. Chief, Police Dep't, City of Waterbury , FIC2013-047 ¶¶ 1, 2, 7, 19, 20 (finding police department is a public agency and internal affairs reports concerning specific officers are public records, and that police department violated the Connecticut Freedom of Information statute by refusing to provide copies to a member of the public). Records of the official actions of Officer Wozniak and other members of the New Britain Police Department are public records.
Available at https://portal.ct.gov/FOI/Decisions/FinalDecisions2013/FIC2013-047.
The public has not only a right, but a need to know the contents of the records at issue because they document the violation of the Constitutional rights of a Connecticut citizen, by a public official acting in the course of his official duty to serve and protect the public
Sadly, this is hardly the first time Connecticut law enforcement personnel have violated the constitutional rights of a citizen in the performance of their official duty. For example, New Haven police officer William White was arrested by the FBI in March 2007. He was charged with stealing money from people he believed to be drug dealers during a federal sting operation. He was subsequently charged with accepting bribes from bail bondsmen to find fugitives. White pled guilty to several felony charges and was sentenced to federal prison. See USA v. William White , No. 3:07cr00089 (JBA) and No. 3:07cr00090 (JBA) (D. Conn.). Like Officer Wozniak, White engaged in misconduct early in his career. He planted drugs on a suspect in a drug arrest, and eventually was sentenced to 38 months' imprisonment after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bribery and two counts of theft of government funds. Jennifer Medina, For Connecticut Officer Charged with Theft, a Career of Ups and Downs , N.Y. TIMES , Mar. 15, 2007, at B1. Fellow New Haven Police Officer Justen Kasperzyk was convicted and his conviction was used to impeach his credibility after he admitted (1) "planting" illegal drugs and lying about where he found them in order to secure a false arrest, and (2) falsely reporting the amount of money he found as "abandoned property" in order to cover up the fact that he had stolen some of the money. USA v. Justen Kasperzyk , No. 3:07-cr-222 (AHN) (D. Conn.).
See https://lawenforcementcorruption.blogspot.com/2008/04/former-new-haven-police-lieutenant.html.
The records at issue evince Officer Wozniak's dishonesty and deceptiveness and are probative of his propensity for truthfulness or untruthfulness and thus may be inquired into on cross-examination pursuant to FRE 608(b)(1). See U.S. v. Sperling , 726 F.2d 69, 75 (2d Cir. 1984) (acceptable to cross-examine witness regarding false credit card applications to show general lack of credibility under FRE 608(b)(1) ). The Court is not suggesting that Officer Wozniak's conduct approached that of White and Kasperzyk, but it is vital to the public interest that the public know when the rights of its citizens are violated and to know if a person on whose reports and testimony the public must rely has demonstrated a propensity for dishonesty and deceptiveness
The Court also notes that the New Britain Police Department investigation report, [ECF No. 576-1], has no confidentiality markings on it of any kind, nor does it indicate that it is confidential in any way.
--------
Moreover, just because this case is resolved, and Officer Wozniak will not be called to testify in court, does not mean that the records filed on the docket are not "judicial documents." At the time they were filed the Court made a searching review of them to determine if they should be disclosed to the defense, and to determine what impact they might have on Officer Wozniak's testimony. Thus, they were "judicial documents to which the public has a presumptive right of access under the common law" because they were "relevant to the performance of a judicial function and useful to the judicial process." D. Conn. L. Crim. R. 57(b)(3)(A). That has not changed, despite the closure of this case. If the rule the Government advocates for was law, all documents in every criminal case that were filed under seal would necessarily remain under seal in perpetuity.
Furthermore, the resolution of this case was not of Officer's Wozniak's conduct. The case resolved when the charges against the person against whom Officer Wozniak was going to testify were dismissed. Even had this case absolved Officer Wozniak of wrongdoing there would likely be no basis to seal the material. Indeed, the court does not seal court records of cases in which an individual is acquitted of criminal offenses.
The Court denies the Government's Sealed Motion to maintain the documents regarding Officer Wozniak under seal. The Clerk is directed to unseal ECF Nos. 575, 576, 576-1, 583, 588, 593, and 594. Because the motion to seal is denied, the Government's motion for permission to disclose the information about Officer Wozniak to the New Britain State's Attorney's Office is denied as moot, as is the Government's Motion to Seal, [ECF No. 593].
IT IS SO ORDERED