Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Begley v. State, 234 Conn. App. 820 (2025)

Citation
Begley v. State, 234 Conn. App. 820 (2025)
Parent Document
Begley v. State, 234 Conn. App. 820 (2025)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2025-09-02

Other Sections in This Document (38)

Full Text

2,366 chars
who was the commanding officer of the intelligence
       center. Corey reported to Major Michael Darcy, the
       commander of special investigations. On March 3, 2016,
       at the direction of Corey and Darcy, the plaintiff filed
       a report of Citta’s conduct with the department’s Equal
       Employment Opportunity Office (report).
          Citta thereafter was removed from the intelligence
       center and sent back to work with the Hartford police.
       The plaintiff did not make the decision, or have any
       input in the decision, to transfer Citta back to the Hart-
       ford police. The plaintiff did not communicate with
       anybody else at the Hartford police regarding the inci-
       dent involving Citta. Upon Citta’s return to the Hartford
       police, he was assigned to its Capitol City Crime Center
       (crime center unit).6 Citta and another officer at the
       crime center unit stopped sending certain information
       to the intelligence center. Citta indicated to a fellow
       officer that he made the decision not to share informa-
       tion with the intelligence center until the plaintiff and
       Corey were removed from the intelligence center, but
       that was his own decision and he could not make that
       decision for other officers in the crime center unit. Citta
       had a discussion with Trooper Shawn Benoit regarding
       ‘‘what was happening with the complaint and everything
       going on’’ and stated that he told Benoit that ‘‘everything
       that’s being handled is being handled at the top,’’ mean-
       ing ‘‘[his] supervisors and . . . [his] command staff,’’
       consisting of the defendant and ‘‘the other deputy chiefs
       and everybody in the place at the time.’’
         At that time, the defendant was the chief of the Hart-
       ford police. The report was not sent to the defendant,
       and he did not see it until he was deposed in this case.
       The plaintiff did not have any communications with the
         6
           According to the plaintiff’s second amended complaint, the crime center
       unit was a ‘‘newly formed intelligence unit [that] . . . would have to work
       collaboratively with . . . [the intelligence center].’’
Page 4                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     0, 0