Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Interesting read which mentions SEVERAL TIMES

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Connecticut USA

    Interesting read which mentions SEVERAL TIMES

    Obviously Connecticut Department of Public Safety - SLFU Detective Barbara Mattson was very concerned about the public records that were obtained and posted here on

    There is much more to this incident but this should be enough to explain what happened.



    COMPLAINANT:Detective Barbara Mattson
    1111 Country Club Road
    Middletown, CT 06051


    This complaint pertains to a Freedom of Information request filed by Mr. Edward Peruta of Rocky Hill,Connecticut. Specifically, it involves the alleged release of internal departmental correspondence to Mr.Edward Peruta prior to the information being properly vetted by the Legal Affairs Unit. The complaintalleges the information was subsequently posted on the Internet at

    The complainant, Detective Barbara Mattson, of the Special Licensing & Firearms Unit, was the subjectof some of the information which was requested and released, specifically, a memo from Douglas Hallto LT Mark Cassista, Commanding Officer of the Special Licensing & Firearms Unit. Detective Mattsonindicated she was never informed of the memo prior to it being posted on and feels thecontent of the memo calls into question her integrity and damages her reputation.


    On June 10, 2010 at approximately 1215 hours I was advised by LTC Christopher Arciero I was beingassigned an Internal Investigation regarding the above referenced complaint.

    On June 29, 2010 at approximately 1000 hours, I met with LT Mark Sticca of the Office of ProfessionalStandards & Training, Internal Affairs Section, in my office in the Department of Public SafetyHeadquarters in Middletown. LT Sticca briefed me regarding the particulars of the complaint andprovided me with a copy of the original complaint and a copy of the posting in question (attached) Upon the conclusion of this meeting I conducted a detailed andcomprehensive review of the complaint and supporting documentation.

    On June 30, 2010 at 1150 hours I advised Detective Mattson I had been assigned to investigate hercomplaint and instructed her to review her schedule to ascertain an amicable interview date and time.

    On July 1, 2010 at 1400 hours I advised Detective Mattson of tentative dates during the week of July 5 -9th. I later received a voicemail from her regarding her availability due to a previously scheduledvacation.

    On July 28, 2010 from 1330 hours to 1421 hours I met with Detective Mattson in my office at DPSHeadquarters regarding her complaint. Detective Mattson provided me an overview of her assignmentand duties in the Special Licensing & Firearms Unit, including her interactions with Douglas Hall.Detective Mattson stated initially upon his arrival in the unit she experienced a communication problemwith Sgt. Hall regarding the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, and the revocation of pistol permits.

    She further explained she spoke to Sgt. Hall regarding the matter and he apologized, but the situation didnot change.Detective Mattson also elaborated on an incident involving an accidental discharge in the weapons vaulton December 29, 2009 and her inadvertently shredding a police report which had been requested byTrooper Thomas Hatfield, formerly of SLFU, on December 9, 2009. She articulated her displeasure andquestioned the timeliness of the Performance Observation Report she received from Sgt. Hallpertainingto the incidents months later. She stated that during this time period there were changes in assignmentsand duties made within the unit and her relationship with Sgt. Hall was becoming tenuous. This resultedin her meeting with then LTC Arciero, Commanding Officer of the Office of Administrative Service, onFebruary 16, 2010 and requesting a transfer out of the unit. She felt the Performance Observation Reportissuance date of March 11, 2010 for the December 9, 2009 and December 29, 2009 incidents wasquestionable as it was written after she met with LTC Arciero. Additionally she stated Sgt. Hall did notdiscuss either incident with her prior to the issuance of the Performance Observation Report.I inquired of Detective Mattson if she had discussed any of these issues with LT Cassista and she statedshe had. She also stated that after her meeting with LTC Arciero she began to have issues with LTCassista as well. She informed me she met with Sgt. Hall and LT Cassista on March 11, 2010 regardingthe Performance Observation Report she received. At this meeting LT Cassista instructed Sgt. Hall torevise the POR and remove all references to the circumstances surrounding the inadvertent shredding ofthe requested document after discussing the matter with both Sgt. Hall and Detective Mattson (revisedPOR attached). I then asked Detective Mattson to clarify her relationship with LT Cassista. She allegedhe had advised Sgt. Hall to quote "straighten me out", she also speculated as to whether the memowritten by Sgt. Hall was voluntarily written. There was no additional information or documentationprovided to substantiate either of these statements or any inappropriate release of information. DetectiveMattson did provide me with a copy of a memo from her to LT Cassista dated May 4, 2010 detailinghow she learned of the posting of Sgt. Hall's memo on , the circumstances surroundingthe shredding of the report and the specificity of Mr. Peruta's requests regarding Sgt. Hall's memo(attached).

    On July 28, 2010 from 1445 hours to 1520 hours I met with LT Cassista regarding the complaint andDetective Mattson's assertions LT Cassista stated he had no knowledge and did not release anyinformation contained in Sgt. Hall's memo to Mr. Peruta or . He said he was aware of anadditional memo pertaining to a 2nd Amendment Rally at the State Capital on April 10, 2010 which wasfor police information only that was also posted on . He had no knowledge of how thismemo was provided to (attached). He went on to say he forwarded the complaint immediately upon learning of the postings. When asked about the relationship with Sgt. Hall andDetective Mattson, he attributed it to a senior Trooper and a newly promoted supervisor who hadpreviously worked as peers in the same unit. He stated he had general conversations with Sgt. Hallregarding supervision of personnel and the use of POR's in documenting performance to assist him withhis new role and the interpersonal dynamics associated with it. I then asked LT Cassista about therevision of the POR for the shredding of the report. He stated he felt the matter was sufficientlyexplained by Detective Mattson and did not require any further documentation.

    On August 5, 2010 I requested copies of the Freedom of Information request made by Mr. Peruta fromSgt. Seth Mancini of the Legal Affairs Unit.

    On August 6, 2010 I met with LT Sticca at the Meriden Complex and advised him as to the status of theinvestigation. Additionally on this date I received copies of the Freedom of Information Request fromSgt. Mancini (attached). I then reviewed the request in detail and found it to be extremely broad in scopeand not specific to Detective Mattson. The wording of the request read in part for "reviews of SLFUpersonnel in the unit, reprimands of personnel, suggested changes in policy". Although she was notspecifically mentioned in the POI request Sgt. Mancini provided me with an email from TrooperThomas Hatfield of the Legal Affairs Unit to Mr. Peruta clarifying the vastness of his request.

    The summation of the request by Trooper Hatfield did contain two references to Detective Mattson andDetective Thomas Karanda, however it was not specific to a particular memo. It remained wide in scopeutilizing terms such as; "assigned and actual duties", "work product evaluations", "personnel reports""reprimands", "commendations", "complaints", "internal investigations" and "letters from the public""which pertain to, or involve Det. Barbara Mattson and Det. Thomas Karanda as State employeesworking in SLFU."

    On August 12, 2010 at 1145 hours I met with Sgt. Mancini and requested documentation of the releasedate and time for the Freedom of Information request containing the memo in question. This informationwas provided by Sgt. Mancini at 1335 hours (attached). The information provided was a copy of anemail from Trooper Hatfield to Mr. Peruta with an attachment of two (2) images and (2) pdf files. Thetime of the email was "4:40pm". Further clarification would be needed from Trooper Hatfield regardingthe content of the attachments and time they were sent. It is to be noted the memo in question was posted
    on at 6:08pm.

    Also on this date at 1255 hours through 1310 hours I met with Sgt. Michael Kostrzewa, also a supervisorin the SLFU, who was cc'ed on the memo written by Sgt. Hall to LT Cassista. I inquired ofSgt. Kostrzewa if he in fact received the email memo and he stated he did. 1 further inquired if hedisseminated it to anyone and he stated "no". I then asked if he gave it to or discussed it with Mr. Perutaand he stated "no", he has never met or spoken to him.

    On August 25, 2010 from 0940 hours through 0955 hours I met with Sgt. Hall in my office in Middletown. I asked Sgt. Hall three (3) direct questions regarding the release of the memo in question.

    1. Did you forward, or otherwise provide a copy of the email you sent to LT Cassita dated February 26, 2010 Subject: "SLFU considerations considering my anticipated transfer" to Edward Peruta.

    2. At anytime did you discuss the contents of the memo with him?

    3. At anytime have you discussed SLFU personnel or investigations with him, specifically regarding TFC Barbara Mattson and or TFC Thomas Karanda?

    Sgt. Hall responded "no" to all three questions and stated he did not release any memos pertaining toinvestigations, personnel issues or operations to anyone. I asked for a clarification if this included thepolice only memo regarding the 2' Amendment rally and he said yes. I then asked Sgt. Hall if he knewhow I could contact Mr. Peruta and he provided me with his telephone number.

    Immediately upon the conclusion of my interview of Sgt. Hail at 0955 hours I contacted Edward Perutaat the telephone number provided by Sgt. Hall. I identified myself and explained to him the nature of mycall. I found Mr. Peruta to be very personable and cooperative. He provided me with a brief backgroundon himself and the utmost respect he had for the Connecticut State Police. I asked Mr. Peruta if anyonehad provided him any information from the SLFU, specifically the memo in question. He responded bysaying no one ever provided it, he said he "threw a net out - being an FOI guru" He elaborated by saying"to cover his ass he made it Doug Hall himself ". He stated he knows we "operate as a paramilitaryorganization" he was in the military and "usually an exit memo is done", "I threw out fishing net" " Ididn't know what I was looking for". He said he asked "Doug" directly about an exit memo and he saidgenerally yes but he could not release it. Mr. Peruta said he did not know what it contained. Thisresulted in him saying he was "pissed at Doug for not giving it to me". He said this was discussed in ageneral conversation with Doug about his personal documenting practices.

    When asked about how he learned about the specific memo he said he did not recall how he learned ofit. He went on to say he "speaks to a limited amount of people, Hatfield, Hall and Seth Mancini". Hesaid it "may have been discussed with Hatfield or Hall" he did not know which. I then asked him to takea moment and try to recall and he replied by stating "I did not receive any document from Sgt. DouglasHall" I then read his statement back to him and he stated he wanted his official response to be "I did notreceive (any) the document in question from Sgt. Douglas Hall". He explained the revision was due tothe fact he had received the document through proper channels from Sgt. Hall in the past. He notedwhen he did receive it from Trooper Hatfield as part of his FOI request "in my opinion I found pay dirt".He remained very adamant throughout our conversation and he did not request anything specific usingthe term "fishing net" repeatedly and the memo was just received as part of his overall request. Whenasked about the memo posted on pertaining to the 2nd Amendment Rally at the CapitalMr. Peruta offered no information on how this document was obtained. He closed by saying "Doug Hallin my opinion is a straight arrow". The conversation concluded at 1020 hours.

    On August 15, 2010 at 1325 hours through 1335 hours I met with Sgt. Mancini in my office inMiddletown. I inquired of Sgt. Mancini if he ever discussed the memo in question with Mr. Peruta andhe stated he had not. He further stated he reviewed the FOI request withTrooper Hatfield due to thescope of the request. He closed by saying he learned of the specific memo from Trooper Hatfield.

    Also on August 15, 2010 I met with Trooper Hatfield in my office in Middletown from 1340 hoursthrough 1400 hours. Trooper Hatfield explained to me his dealing with Mr. Peruta regarding hisFreedom of Information request. Trooper Hatfield informed me he only spoke to him regardingnarrowing down his request. He summed this up by stating he was looking for "materials surroundinghis (Sgt. Hall's) leaving and the Second Amendment case". He went on to say "Mr. Peruta did notmention any specific memos. Further he did not mention any topics in the memo in question" In TrooperHatfield's opinion "Mr. Peruta wanted to know the circumstance in which Sgt. Hall was beingreassigned" Trooper Hatfield stated he specifically asked him "what is it that you really wanted". PerTrooper Hatfield Mr. Peruta stated he wanted information on why Sgt. Hall was being transferred andmentioned to him about being in the military and "he knew paperwork had to be done".

    Trooper Hatfield further advised me upon receiving the information requested from Sgt. Hall hecontacted Mr. Peruta and advised him he had obtained the requested information and emailed it to him.Trooper Hatfield then clarified the information provided to me by Sgt. Mancini on August 12, 2010.Trooper Hatfield confirmed that the memo in question was part of the FOI packet FOI 10-276 he sent toMr. Peruta on April 28, 2010 at 4:40pm prior to it being posted on .

    Trooper Hatfield also offered clarification on the 2nd Amendment Rally memo dated April 10, 2010. Hestated he drafted the document and forwarded it to SLFU, and Troop H personnel for guidance on legalissues that may arise. He did not provide the memo to Mr. Peruta or .


    It is recommended that this complaint regarding the inappropriate release of information be closed withno further action, as the allegation is found to be unsubstantiated. There has been no informationdeveloped to show a specific memo was requested or information being released without being properlyvetted by the Legal Affairs Unit. Though the memo in question was posted on it was notposted until after it was released by Legal Affairs.

    The specific concerns raised by Detective Mattson in her initial memo and complaint interview do notcoincide with the facts of the actual FOI request and statements of personnel interviewed. Further, theremainder of her concerns regarding the administrative operations within the SLFU have been addressedby LT Cassista.

  2. #2
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    , ,

    Jonathan - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Sounds like we have a trooper who is very nervous about having transparency around what the trooper is doing while on the job.

    'Inadvertently shredding' documents? Objecting to public information from proper FOI requests?

    Sounds like a trooper that needs to be watched very, very closely.

    As always, good work in making important things public Ed.

  4. #4
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    , ,
    I agree with Rich.

    I've said it before, I'll say it again...... sunlight is the best disinfectant!

    Jonathan - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts