Missing dash cam footage raises questions in Thomaston

John Bertanza, a Shelton, Connecticut, resident, has accused the Thomaston Police Department of withholding evidence in violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and refusing to follow up on a police complaint he submitted regarding the department’s handling of a traffic ticketing incident that occurred in June 2023.

Bertanza was pulled over on Branch Road in Thomaston on June 6, 2023, and originally ticketed for speeding in a school zone and failure to provide proof of insurance. Bertanza contends that while he may have been speeding at the top of a hill on Branch Road in sight of the officer, that he reduced his speed accordingly upon seeing the limit drop to 40 miles per hour halfway down the hill, and that he was well under the 25 mile per hour limit by the time he reached the school zone.

Bertanza also insists that at the time of his ticketing, 11:12 a.m., the lights on the school zone speed sign were not flashing, indicating that the limit was not enforceable at the time. The ticketing officer, Officer Gallo, insisted that the school zone lights were on at the time he pulled Bertanza over and that his dash cam footage would vindicate him, were Gallo to take the ticket to court. Bertanza, certain that the footage would instead be the key to getting him off the hook, submitted a FOIA request in person for the dashcam footage two days later. After submitting the request, he received a call from Thomaston Detective Keith Koval the next day.

“He quite frankly said to me on the phone that he knew that those lights were off because he was the one that was in charge of setting the timers or whatever,” Bertanza told Inside Investigator. “He kind of almost confided in me saying, “I don’t know why this guy gave you a ticket for this.’”

Bertanza said that Koval also confided in him that he should not have received the failure to provide proof of insurance ticket, as Gallo could have simply radioed into dispatch to run Bertanza’s car information and confirm that he was insured. Koval said that Gallo “made a mistake,” and that he instructed Gallo to include a supplementary note on the back of Bertanza’s ticket, indicating that the lights were not on at the time of his ticketing. Bertanza took issue with Koval’s characterization of the incident as a mistake.

“A ‘mistake’ is an interesting choice of term to describe the action of Officer Gallo,” reads a complaint Bertanza submitted to the department in June 2024. “The lights are either on or off – there is no mistake.”

Koval also told Bertanza that since the dash cam video was in relation to a motor vehicle incident, Bertanza would have to wait until court to see it. On April 2, 2024, Bertanza spoke again with Koval to see if he could receive a copy of the note added to the back of his ticket in preparation for his upcoming court date, a request which Koval obliged. Bertanza again requested the dash cam footage, which Koval then said no longer existed.

“This is contrary to what I was previously informed by Officer Gallo and Det. Koval that it would be available if I came to court,” reads Bertanza’s complaint. “Evidence that would have confirmed the school zone lights were not on, as the Officer’s vehicle was positioned directly in front of the sign, now no longer existed. It is extremely concerning that evidence was not preserved as I had pleaded not guilty to the offense.”

Per FOIA laws, as laid out by the Public Records Administrator, police cruiser camera footage must be retained throughout the life of a trial if it is submitted as evidence.

“In the event that the recording is determined to be evidence, it must be held pursuant to standard procedures and retention requirements as part of the case file: Motor vehicle cases (non‐ accident) ‐‐ retain through the hearing and court proceedings,” reads the Public Records Administrator’s retention and disposition schedule.

Ultimately, Bertanza said his ticket was nullified by the prosecutor on his court date, so he did not need to go to trial. Bertanza acknowledged that while his frustrations with the department may seem trivial, he worries that the way it handled his requests may be indicative of a larger problem.

“It’s a traffic ticket, not a murder trial, I get it,” said Bertanza. “But the evidence is supposed to be preserved. If I had to go to court, and I didn’t say anything, I would have had no way to defend myself.”

Bertanza has also been displeased with how the police department has handled his subsequent complaint. Bertanza said that he called the department on Sept. 6, 2024, over two months after he submitted the complaint, and left a voicemail on the department chief’s voicemail. Bertanza said Koval called him back, and asked if he had filed the necessary paperwork for his complaint.

“I said, ‘I’m following up on a complaint on the officer,’” said Bertanza. “And then he asked me if I filled out any paperwork, and I certainly did, and what happened to it for the last month and a half? If I hadn’t followed up, would I have heard nothing?”

Bertanza said that Koval asked him what he’d like to see come out of the complaint. Bertanza said he would like to see some sort of reprimand reflected in the officer’s record. Koval allegedly told Bertanza that the department “spoke to him and told him he has to be a little more careful.” Koval then told Bertanza that he would speak to the police chief, and that he would receive a call back shortly, but that he has since heard nothing from the department.

“I just think that this evidence getting thrown away, and the way this was handled, just doesn’t smell right to me,” said Bertanza.

Inside Investigator requested comment from the Thomaston Police Department, and was referred to the voicemail of an officer who is currently on vacation. This story will be updated if or when the department decides to provide comment.

The post Missing dash cam footage raises questions in Thomaston appeared first on Connecticut Inside Investigator .