UPDATE. Twenty Two Months Ago today I was arrested and bloodied by Torrington Police officer William Quarles. I don’t doubt he is a good guy. I spent several hours with him that morning in the ambulance, the TPD and at the Emergency Room at Charlotte Hungerford. I blame his training and the culture of violence in the Torrington Police.
This was last updated 18 months ago, but the final days of my criminal charges are soon over. It you have not yet watched the video of my arrest, WATCH IT NOW. Click on the link below, right now.
WATCH THIS VIDEO Click the link to the LEFT.
I will not plead guilty to resisting arrest. I know in the video Quarles says I am not under arrest, but he called the supervisor who told me in the car I was under arrest. Now for 22 months nothing has happened.
The ONLY reason for prosecution is if I sue the City of Torrington. If I am found guilty of anything at all my chances for winning a suit are diminished. So they hold it up for years.
I call this Prosecutorial, Judicial and Procedural misconduct. I recently contacted the US Department of Justice and the State of Connecticut Attorney General. I believe it is a crime to prosecute me so that I won’t sue them for misconduct, called, Depravations of Rights Under Color of Law. Section 242 of Title 18 of US Criminal Code. Malicious prosecution in Connecticut is more difficult to prove.
So then will come the Civil Suits. No one can predict how they will go. So here are some of my simpler claims so far:
L18W-CR19-0181768-S Date of Arrest 12/17/2019. Court date October 19, 2021 at 2PM
Sent to the Justice Department:
Police handcuffed and bloodied me while not under arrest, clearly told multiple times on video I was “detained” not under arrest.
After police saw blood on my face while I was handcuffed I was charged with resisting arrest.
State Prosecutor Sarah Fallon asked Corporation Counsel Victor Muschell to direct police not to comply with my requests for evidence via the Freedom of Information Act. She admits to it so as not influence a future jury. Some evidence was destroyed after I requested it On the record in open court.
Two years and still no trial date. I will not plead guilty to anything. I was offered a $35 fine to plead guilty.
State police were asked to investigate but claimed no jurisdiction, that they would forward the request to Torrington police.
Torrington police claim they never received the request for investigation. I have the names of the office claiming to send it and the officer claiming Torrington never received it.
Multiple FOI requests are still waiting for hearings in Hartford after nearly two years.
Requests for information from the Torrington Board of Public Safety were ignored.
Five motions filed over a year ago are unread in the Torrington Courthouse. A motion for change in venue was denied by a single word. A motion for Discovery denied because the evidence was “not relevant” but did not say why it was not relevant despite clear arguments of relevance in court. The court record is available on request.
Fifteen court dates in two years, motions unread, continuances granted to the prosecution. The prosecutor claims no appearance was filed while the judge said it was filed two months earlier in open court. Motion denied in writing but not delivered until two months after it was denied. Stalling for two years in hopes I will plead guilty to something.
Court date October 19, 2021 with seven motions pending mostly for Discovery.
Malicious prosecution in an attempt to avoid a suit against the City of Torrington for police misconduct.
On December 17 when this happened I had my own recording going, but no audio. Here are my security videos. Not very good quality.
My security video 1
My security video 2
My security video 3
I have written email and letters and sent the video to newspapers, TV stations, State officials, the Justice Department, the FBI, the Police and the State’s Attorney. The State’s Attorney said what the police did is fine. The first event was the court date of December 30, 2019. When you are reading this I am waiting for a jury trial.
Here is my Summons: Misdemeanor Ticket .
So I don’t know where to go in the huge marble lobby. I ask at the door that says “criminal” and the woman there said, no, this is for the serious criminals. Try Traffic next door. There were a few people there, and a clip board, so I put my name on it. Then I walked to the clerk’s office and they looked at my summons and said, yeah, go to traffic. So I sit in Traffic. Someone left a little bag of white powder on one of the chairs which caused a fuss.
The Prosecutor doesn’t introduce herself or anything. Calls my name. I have my phone in my hand and I hit record. She says “Are you recording”? Yes. Okay. Stop. We are done. Just go to court room number 1 and I will meet you there. And she goes into her door. As I am walking across to Court Room 1 she appears again with security who tells me to erase anything I recorded, that recording is not allowed in the court house. I push a button or two and tell them it is erased.
I am called in front of the judge. Prosecutor says she has not had a chance to talk to me, but that I had tried to record our meeting. Judge looks at me curiously, sternly. Prosecutor says she is prepared to offer me $50 fine and no criminal record. The judge asks if I want that deal. He seems stern and, kind of, well, angry or bothered. I said “No your honor”. Prosecutor says “you will have no record”. I don’t say anything. The judge asks the prosecutor if she will proceed, she pretends to think about it. Yes, she will proceed. He says, okay, an infraction trial, like it is a bother. He strongly advised me to get a lawyer.
Then his mood changes, he becomes, like almost kind looking. He asks do I want a judge trial or a jury trial. I say “Jury trial, your honor”. Then he changes back. Prosecutor says I should file an appearance and a motion for discovery. Next date is for pre trial. I ask if I will be notified, the judge asks the prosecutor and she says no, they do not normally notify pro-se defendants, I need to check. Do I come to the court room? No, come to her office and sign in like I did this time.
I went to the Clerk’s office, which looks more like a prison telephone glass room. I said I needed an appearance form. She hands me one, I put down the numbers I had from my ticket. I ask if this is all that is needed? She says she is not a lawyer and cannot advise me. So I leave the form.
I knew my own videos were not good enough to convince anyone that I was not resisting or impeding so I had to get copies of the cops’ body cams. So on January 30, 2020 I put in a Freedom of Information Act request for information. Here is a link to the PDF of that first request. FOIA 12/30/19 This is the video you saw above which I received more than six months later, but the police had already viewed it to make their police reports.
After sending the letter I looked into the law and found that in Connecticut not answering is considered a denial. But you only have 30 days to appeal. Presumably, then, you would have to wait to the 29th day that they don’t answer to file the appeal. If you wait longer your appeal will be denied.
But I am getting ahead of myself. I tried a website called Muckrock who claimed to help with FOIA requests. Long story short, after various ways of asking for help, they refunded my $20 and didn’t help much at all. They did receive the information I requested through them after I received it however. I had to pay for the video copies twice, about $20 I think
I requested the video above and within days I got this, hand delivered by a police officer.
TPD Response
I won’t put any more links to these Creative Denials which are worded nearly identically every time. I wrote letters back to them about the confusing wording The letter says:
“I will need more time to determine whether I will be able to process all of the video requested.”
The exact wording is used on all responses and presumably serves to keep people guessing. I now know that the officers had already viewed the video in question because they used it to write their reports of the day. I wonder why they wrote their report ten days after the arrest, but the Use Of Force report was written the same day (but not given to me until August).
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
It is my view at this point that they have circled the wagons and they were conspiring to use the law to deprive me of my rights. I think they were talking about how best to be sure that I don’t get my constitutional rights, but more about that later.
I wrote a quick letter asking for clarification and of course did not get a response. So I wrote another FOIA request. Rather than bog you down reading a lot of them, here is one from February 3 which shows what they were like. However the Connecticut FOI Commission accepts email and confirms receipt very quickly. I always mail, email and fax. Lawyers say to send things certified, but all you need is confirmation they received it.
CT FOI Appeal 2/3/20
There was no hurry before the long date to pre-trial but I knew I needed to write a motion for discovery and I had received absolutely nothing from the courts since the January court date. So I looked up the case on line and there was nothing written next to appearance. So I called the clerk, no, they did not have an appearance form.
Signed Appearance
I mailed, faxed, and brought a copy to the courthouse and submitted it at the clerk’s window. This was the beginning of Covid-19 season and the parking lot was completely empty. I almost left, but I saw someone washing windows. So I walked in and it was full. Lots of people, but all people who worked there. No public.
With the Motion For Discovery I attached another copy of the appearance. We can talk about the motion in a minute, we should finish the issue with filing my appearance. I suspected the trouble because the prosecutor had made such a point of me filing the appearance, and the lady at the clerks window made such a point of not helping me and then the form disappears. I do not have a copy of the first form.
So now the June 23 court date was fast approaching, Covid 19 was in full swing, and Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney Sarah Fallon sends me this short letter:
Fallon Letter
She says: “…please file an Appearance form with the Clerk’s Office with a copy to this office. Discovery materials will be provided as appropriate pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book sections 40-7, 40-10, and 40-11 , et seq.” She is claiming she did not receive my appearance.
I respond with my own short letter, and a Motion to dismiss.
May 21 letter
Motion to Dismiss
During this time I still have not seen the video that you saw at the beginning of this post. I was there, I knew what happened, but I did not know if I would ever have proof. I had a hearing in Hartford with the Torrington Corporation Counsel Victor Muschell. It had been postponed due to the Coronavirus. I had some interesting email conversations with the ombudsman for the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission.
3/10/2020 4:21 PM
I just talked to the Town Attorney again. Apparently the prosecutor has now asked the town not to release the video. I explained that it is not the prosecutor’s decision because it is not their record. The town attorney understands that and said he is going to reach out to the prosecutor personally.
The date of the hearing I am told that Sgt. Wityak is not available because of a training commitment. I would expect them to request a continuation of the hearing date. If they request a continuance they will have to send you a copy of their request.
As an aside, you should be able to go to arrange a viewing of the video at the court as part of the discovery process. They generally have to open their file to the arrested party. —
Attorney Matthew Reed Ombudsman FOI Commission for State of CT.
To recap in March, 2020, prosecutor Fallon is telling the city attorney to tell the police not to release information to me. In May she is saying she never received the Appearance and the Motion I had filed in March, and had been confirmed received by the Clerk of Courts and by fax receipt. So I wrote a letter the same day I received hers with a copy of the already filed appearance and motion attached.
As anyone who has seen the video knows I refused to give the officer my ID and I started recording with my telephone. He took the phone out of my hand and arrested me, bloodied me and told me he was not arresting me. That was clear. What is not clear is why I refused to give my ID. I ask him three times why I need to give him my ID. I give him a business card, I point out he is in my place of business, that he has said he knows me. But I did refuse to give him an ID in my own home and that is why I am on trial for getting beat up.
Officer Quarles referred to coming here to my place of business again and again. Well that is true. Alfred James Lauretano who I call Jimmy is a neighbor, lives next door, and I asked for an got some 40 pages of his calls for police assistance during the last two years. http://police.compx2.com/2019FOIA.pdf
Jimmy has learning difficulties and anger issues. I have several videos of his interactions. He uses racial slurs and once called the police on my girlfriend’s music because it was Spanish. I learned several years ago that calling the police only makes things worse. Once the police told me to video Jimmy and then another officer says don’t video him because that only provokes him. Once Jimmy told me he was going to smash a car with a cinder block so I took pictures of the cinder blocks by his front door. He had security camera and when he returned he called the police who told me taking pictures of his front door was trespassing. Oh, I have a million stories.
But one interesting one is why Jimmy’s video is not on the body cam of the officers who came to my home. Jimmy was there screaming obscenities at the officer while I was in the snow/rain. Officer Quarles was in the house with Cookie and he came out thinking I was the one screaming. But none of that is recorded. And prosecutor Fallon says that is not relevant to the case and so does not comply with the Discovery motions.
So we are into the Covid 19 Period and the courts are closed. Then comes the murder of George Floyd and the BLM movement. There was a protest in Torrington and the Police Chief says in a sound bit I heard on the radio that police need to stop their fellow officers from misconduct. So I wrote this open letter and sent it all over town. http://police.compx2.com/Police Chief0604.pdf
So jump ahead to November 16, 2020.
October 20 at 2 pm I appeared in court as required for a “pre-trial” and presented the clerk and the prosecutor a copy of my Third motion to compel discovery.
http://police.compx2.com/Police%Discovery3.pdf
I was told on October 20 to show up at 2pm on Nov 16. But in the morning I looked and it said 10am. So I called about 9:15 in the morning and they confirmed I should be there at 10. I called someone to cover for me at work, and I asked to speak to the office of the prosecutor about being told 2pm but then they want me at 10am. I was put on hold, for over an hour.
So I arrived about 10:30 and waited in court until recess at 1 pm. Then returned at 2pm.
I was left to the last case in the live audience and was brought in front of the camera where the Prosecutor said she believed I wanted to argue my third motion for discovery. I said if the judge was not going to grant it then sure, I want to argue it. So he said a 15 minute recess so that he can read it. I went out to the hall. No one else was left.
Called me back in to the camera, Judge sounded irritated that he read all the motions, my motion for dismissal, my second motion for dismissal, my motion for discovery, my motion for change in venue, my second motion for discovery. Is that all? I said, no, I thought we were only going to discuss the third motion for discovery. He could not locate a copy. I had one and the prosecutor had one. He said he could read it quickly, it is only one page.
So go ahead, argue.
Because of the discovery I had received the end of December it appears the State intends to argue that the police knew me as a trouble maker and that’s why they could beat me up. I am asking for the video and police reports for the calls from the house next door to me to show that the police certainly knew me from those bogus reports from this violent man that was on video the very day of my arrest. Than none of the reports of more than one a month for the past several years has lead to any action against me. That the problem is the complainer, not who he complains about.
So the Prosecutor responds that none of the body camera footage exists having been destroyed after so many weeks. The judge asked lots of questions about why the complaints from the house next door has anything to do with this case. I respond that the cop who beat me up said in his reports and in his video that I was a problem. Including asking “why somebody hasn’t done anything to” me yet in the video. If I am a trouble maker worthy of a beating how about all the other people Alfred James Lauritano has complained about? Should they be beaten too?
The judge said he would give a written response and checked my address with me which was kind of funny since he had said it seconds before and several other times before that. I knew that I had no future court date and wished to make the point. He had read the motions complaining about not being notified of anything. So when he confirmed the address I said “thank you your honor” and walked at a normal pace toward the door.
I was more than half way there when the prosecutor asked if the judge was going to give me another court date. And so he called me back and I said January 5 at 9 am. I asked if I would be notified. He said yes. The prosecutor said, no, your honor he will not receive any other notification. I said this is an ongoing problem your honor. He said I can write it down now. I asked if this is the only notice I will receive and he said he would send me a clerk’s letter. I said thank you your honor.
http://police.compx2.com/mybradymotion.pdf
Court Date March 2, 2021 I expected to talk about the Brady Motion.
—–
A. On or before March 10, 2020 prosecutor Sarah Fallon suppressed evidence by colluding,
conspiring or influencing the Torrington Corporation Counsel to intervene and deny the
accused of Freedom of Information requests to the Torrington Police Department. The
Defense received this email from ombudsman for the Connecticut Freedom of
Information Commission, MATTHEW D. REED | ATTORNEY Direct: 860-256-3961 |
Fax: 860-566-6474 | matthew.reed@ct.gov
EXCERPT FROM EMAIL
3/10/2020 2:09 PM
Discovery Motion – Brady Inconsistent Evidence 6
6
I have had a couple of conversations with Sgt. Wityak as well as an attorney for the Town.
They tell me they have expedited your request and will have records for your
shortly..sounded to me like as soon as today or tomorrow.
Let me know if you hear from them. MR
EXCERPT FROM NEXT EMAIL
3/10/2020 4:21 PM
I just talked to the Town Attorney again. Apparently the prosecutor has now asked the town
not to release the video. I explained that it is not the prosecutor’s decision because it is not
their record. The town attorney understands that and said he is going to reach out to the
prosecutor personally.
END EXCERPT FROM EMAILS
B. Prosecutor Sara Fallon’s suppression of this evidence violates the Bar as unprofessional
conduct as stated above (Section 3.11 of the American Bar Association Standards
Relating to the Prosecuting Function).
C. Further Prosecutor Fallon stated in this Court on November 16, 2020:
“I did check with the department on that, and they tell me that there are no such body camera
recordings. The – – the sergeant with state police stated there is zero body camera footage for
the afternoon incident, as no report was required for the incident. And the video retention
period for an incident of this type is 13 weeks. So it has been deleted from the system as part
of the automation. So that does not exist.”
D. Suppression of evidence by Sarah Fallon on or before March 10, 2020 was well before
the 13 week period the State claims is normal for the deletion of evidence.
Discovery Motion – Brady Inconsistent Evidence 7
7
E. Further this court heard oral argument on November 16, 2020 that the material deleted
was relevant to the case because the accused said to the Court at that time that the “police
say that I needed to be beat up because I was a trouble maker … why hadn’t anybody
done anything to him before, were the cop’s words” referring to the accused. Here is a
transcript of the exchange between the two arresting officers immediately before entering
the accused’s home and cuffing the accused, injuring the accused and arresting the
accused.
“Quarles: Why were you here yesterday?
“Deloy: I don’t know if we were here yesterday but he keeps causing problems with these
people too because he blocks the driveway.
“Quarles: Yeah I heard about that with the snow and shit. That was…
“Deloy: That’s two days in a row. The third day he did something with somebody else here.
“Quarles: Well why isn’t nobody doing nothing to this guy?
“Deloy: We all waiting for you B.
“Quarles: Of course. This place is a joke, man.”
F. Material to this exchange is some 40 pages of complaints to the Police from Alfred James
Lauritano of 237 / 239 East Main Street, Torrington, my next door neighbor. Despite
suppression efforts of the State Prosecutor I was able to get some copies of police
complaints through the Freedom of Information Act. In the destroyed video Mr.
Lauritano would have appeared while the officers were present on the afternoon call. He
screamed obscenities, threatening and cursing the officers. Mr. Lauritano paid no
attention to me and officers instructed me not to pay any attention to Mr. Lauritano.
Discovery Motion – Brady Inconsistent Evidence 8
8
G. Also in the destroyed video would be the exchange between the original complainant
Patricia Brown and the arresting office Quarles reflected in the afternoon police report
stating Ms. Brown “DOESN’T WANT COP BACK AT RESD”. The exchange between
the two lasted some 20 minutes and they were the only ones in the room.
H. Although this is exculpatory evidence and would tend to impeach prosecution witnesses
the Court ruled this information was “not relevant to the pending charges” in an order
signed by the Court and dated 11/16/20, mailed Jan 6, 2021 and received Jan 11, 2021.
For all these reasons stated above the Defendant moves the court to compel the State to
produce the requested evidence according to the above cited precedents.
Granted_____ Denied_____ to which Defendant objects.
——–
But instead Prosecutor Fallon asked it we could talk about a deal or do I want a trial. I said “Deal ?” She said something that would leave me without a criminal record. I said “that’s not my issue. I want it dropped”. She said okay a trial then, Courtroom 1A I will meet you there. I will call you as soon as I can.
I watched proceedings from about 10:15 to 11:45, then a recess. Came back at !2:15, I was about to leave for a minute. In fact I stood up and walked toward the door and maybe she thought I would be in the hallway by the time she called me, but I waited. I was standing when she called.
This time the Judge addressed the prosecutor immediately and talked about procedure for jury trial for infractions, insinuating that it may not be an option. I had heard them talking before about a deadline for having jury trial or it would be cancelled. I assume they mean that the case would be canceled by the State. I assume that is why they want a deal from me. They will cancel my case rather than waste a lot of time losing my case.
The judge admonished me to get a lawyer telling me how complicated jury trials are, but said “if” there is a jury trial. He was wrapping up, said the next date would be May 26, 2020 and I had to interject, “Your honor, may I speak?”
I said this was very different from what I expected. I had spoken the last time about submitting a Brady Motion and I had done so and thought we would be talking about that motion today. The judge asked when I submitted it, I said at least a month ago. The Clerk said she has a motion from me that say Brady on it submitted January 22, 2020. The judge asked if that was it. I said yes. When would we address that motion. The judge said he didn’t but repeated “if there is a trial” we would address the motion before trial. I pushed. Before May 26? He said maybe. he doesn’t know. But before the trial, I affirmed. “Yes” before the trial if there is a trial.
May 26 is the next time anyone will look at this mess.
One Response to My Arrest And Injury By Torrington Police