Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 1 of 29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

:
:

v.

:

Criminal No. 3:12cr017 (AWT)

:
DENNIS SPAULDING

:

JANUARY 16, 2014

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES
Preliminary Statement
The United States submits this sentencing memorandum in connection with the January
21, 2014 sentencing of defendant Dennis Spaulding (“Spaulding” or “defendant”). For the
reasons set forth below, the Government requests that the Court reject defendant Spaulding’s
absurd request for a non-custodial sentence and impose a prison sentence of at least five years.
A prison sentence of at least five years will satisfy the goals of sentencing by promoting
respect for the law, serve as a just punishment for the extraordinarily serious crimes committed
by Spaulding while acting under color of law, and send a clear and understandable message
that no one, not even a police officer, is above the law.
Spaulding stands before this Court after a trial jury condemned his actions by finding
him guilty of each of the six counts charged against him in the federal indictment. The
evidence presented during trial demonstrated that Spaulding repeatedly abused his position of
authority and his position of trust while serving as an East Haven police officer. The evidence
also showed that Spaulding’s actions were not only intentional and corrupt, they were clearly
1

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 2 of 29

motivated by his anti-immigrant biases. In the end, Spaulding’s own words – “we are cops we
provoke, that’s our job. [N]ot to sit on our heels” -- reflect how profoundly he misunderstood
and violated his oath. Thus, it is not surprising that in his sentencing memo, he continues to
offer the frivolous claim that his illegal arrests, harassment, excessive and discriminatory
conduct could somehow all be justified based on legitimate traffic stops even though none of
the victims who testified at the trial were driving when they suffered abuse from Spaulding and
his fellow officers. That Spaulding continues to claim that he is surprised by the jury’s verdict
simply means that he does not get it - - he does not understand, and surely does not regret in
any manner, his own criminal conduct. Thus, among other goals, the Court’s sentence in this
case must send a clear and understandable message to Spaulding that his conduct was
knowingly criminal, extraordinarily serious and not excusable in any manner.
In addition to having a devastating direct impact on his victims, Spaulding’s actions
were an abuse of his own police power, compromised the moral and ethical obligations of his
fellow officers, delegitimized the East Haven Police Department, and undermined the public’s
trust in law enforcement. As the evidence in this case has demonstrated, when a police officer
like Spaulding violates the very liberties that he is sworn and duty bound to protect, the rule of
law is severely undermined. As the Court well knows, when the rule of law is undermined by
corrupt law enforcement personnel, the integrity of the legal system collapses. A criminal
justice system that wants to be viewed as legitimate must obey the laws it creates. While
perhaps no single act by Spaulding and his co-conspirators caused the type of individualized
extreme harm that we have witnessed in other civil rights cases that caused deep wounds and
riots in American cities, Spaulding’s repeated abuse of power against members of a minority
community, over a lengthy period of time, has had a devastating impact.
2

Because of

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 3 of 29

Spaulding’s actions, families were separated, individuals were physically, emotionally and
financially harmed, a community was terrorized and the public’s trust was broken. Thus, in
addition to sending a message that police officers, like Dennis Spaulding, are not above the
law, the Court’s sentence should serve to demonstrate that everyone’s most fundamental
liberties are protected under our Constitution. The sentence must reaffirm to the community
that: (a) the promise of equal justice under the law is real; (b) the law enforcement community
is unified in its condemnation of Spaulding’s criminal conduct and racist views; and (c) the
justice system remains committed to the rule of law. In short, the sentence must send the
message that these bedrock principles cannot be overcome or discarded by a cancerous cadre
of conspirators from one renegade police department. A sentence of at least five years - - a
sentence that is surely not greater than necessary here - - will send all these messages clearly in
a manner that will be understood by everyone, including Spaulding.

Hopefully, such a

sentence will help Spaulding, and everyone else, understand how wrong and misguided they
are if they continue to believe that what the four East Haven police officers convicted in this
case did was “no big deal.” Just as importantly, this type of sentence will send the appropriate
message to any other law enforcement official or public official, tempted to engage in the
corrupt actions at issue here, that this type of conduct is extraordinarily serious and will not be
tolerated, no matter how many awards or accolades you may have received for doing your job.
I.

Factual Background
This Court is familiar with the evidence presented at trial and therefore, the

Government will not restate the relevant facts herein but rather incorporate them by
reference. Moreover, the Government attaches as Exhibit A, the Government’s version of
offense conduct, which sets forth most of the relevant facts which are also contained in the
3

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 4 of 29

Pre-Sentence Report. See PSR ¶¶ 6-37.
II.

Legal Standard
The Supreme Court clarified the continuing role of the Sentencing Guidelines and the

scope of the sentencing court’s discretion in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
Booker, makes clear that this Court must consider both the sentencing factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. Section 3553(a), and the Sentencing Guidelines in fashioning a reasonable sentence.
Id. at 764. While the Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory following Booker, they
must still be considered in determining the appropriate sentence. The Second Circuit has
recognized the continuing relevance of the Sentencing Guidelines following Booker in
determining an appropriate sentence:
[I]t is important to bear in mind that Booker/ Fanfan and section
3553(a) do more than render the Guidelines a body of casual advice, to be
consulted or overlooked at the whim of a sentencing judge. Thus, it would
be a mistake to think that, after Booker/Fanfan, district judges may return
to the sentencing regime that existed before 1987 and exercise unfettered
discretion to select any sentence within the applicable statutory maximum
and minimum. On the contrary, the Supreme Court expects sentencing
judges faithfully to discharge their statutory obligation to "consider" the
Guidelines and all of the other factors listed in section 3553(a). We
have every confidence that the judges of this Circuit will do so, and
that the resulting sentences will continue to substantially reduce
unwarranted disparities while now achieving somewhat more
individualized justice.
United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 113-14 (2d Cir. 2005).
Under the non-mandatory Guideline regime established by Booker and Crosby, the
sentencing judge is empowered to make the factual findings necessary for determining what
the recommended Guideline Sentence is in a particular case. Crosby, 397 F.3d at 113 (“the
sentencing judge is entitled to find all the facts appropriate for determining either a
Guidelines sentence or a non-Guidelines sentence”).
III.

The Sentencing Guideline Calculation
The PSR properly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines as follows:
The Guidelines Manual in effect on the date of sentencing is used to determine the
4

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 5 of 29

applicable Guidelines range.
U.S.S.G. § 2H1.1 - base level offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2(b)(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +3
U.S.S.G. § 2H1.1(b)(1)(B). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +6
Grouping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +2
No Acceptance of Responsibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0

An offense level of 25 and a criminal history category I results in a Guideline sentence
range of 57-71 months of incarceration. As one of the factors under 3553(a), the Court will
consider this Guideline range in fashioning an appropriate sentence. As explained more fully
below, the Guideline computation is correct as the enhancement all address different harms
contemplated by the Sentencing Commission.
A. The Enhancement for Substantial
Interference with the Administration of Justice
Spaulding argues that the three (3) point enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. §
2J1.2(b)(2) should not apply in this case because Spaulding’s conduct did not cause a
substantial interference with the administration of justice. Contrary to Spaulding’s suggestion,
his criminal conduct set in motion a chain of events that required MM, JLA, JE, and XC to be
denied their liberty and spend a night in jail, hire attorneys, and appear for repeated court
appearances before the state courts. Moreover, Spaulding’s conduct caused state prosecutors
to prosecute the cases and state judges to review these cases - - cases that all resulted in the
victims being required to perform community service despite the fact that there never was any
probable cause to arrest any of these four victims.
Requiring a person to undergo criminal proceedings in a state court constitutes a
separate and substantial interference with justice pursuant to USSG § 2J1.2(b)(2) that is not
5

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 6 of 29

always present when someone violates section 1519. Indeed, the Commentary to USSG §
2J1.2 in Application Note 1 defines “substantial interference with the administration of justice”
to include an “indictment.” Since a police report in the Connecticut state system that requires a
defendant to submit to a criminal prosecution is the equivalent of an indictment, the Guidelines
here require an enhancement pursuant to USSG § 2J1.2(b)(2).

Accordingly, Spaulding’s

offense level was correctly enhanced by three levels pursuant to USSG § 2J1.2(b)(2).
There is ample case law to support this enhancement where a federal obstruction of
justice crime causes unnecessary expenditure of resources during another type of proceeding or
prevents proper legal proceedings from occurring. See United States v. Weissman, 195 F.3d 96
(2d Cir. 1999) (affirming a three-level enhancement for obstruction of justice under USSG §§
2J1.2(b)(2) and 2J1.3(b)(2) where “it is clear beyond dispute that the staff of the [Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations of the United States Senate Committee on Government
Affairs] was required to spend significant additional time” on the hearings as a result of
defendant’s misconduct”);

United States v. Amer, 110 F.3d 873 (2d Cir. 1997) (affirming

three-level enhancement for obstruction of justice in international parental kidnapping case
under USSG § 2J1.2(b)(2) where defendant’s conduct in removing child to Egypt prevented
proper legal proceedings from occurring); United States v. DeSalvo, 26 F.3d 1216 (2d Cir.
1994) (affirming three-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2(b)(2) and 2J1.3(b)(2) where
defendant gave false testimony under oath during the separate federal investigation and
prosecution of the Eisen firm, thereby causing unnecessary expenditure of investigative and
trial expenses in the Eisen case); and United States v. Roberts, 134 F. App'x 470 (2d Cir. 2005)
(remanding case back to district court to employ enhancement for obstruction of justice under
§ 2J1.1 where defendant’s fraud had precipitated needless bankruptcy proceedings thereby
6

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 7 of 29

causing the unnecessary expenditure of substantial bankruptcy court resources, and stating that
“defendant’s claim that only substantial interference with criminal proceedings can qualify for
the enhancement is mistaken”).
Separate and apart from the harm that he caused to his victims, Spaulding’s conduct
cause needless state resources, including judicial resources, to be expended based on false
arrests of numerous individuals. Thus, Spaulding deserves the enhancement not only for
preventing proper legal proceedings from occurring, but for the time and money expended
by numerous victims to extricate themselves from the unlawful criminal prosecutions that
resulted from Spaulding’s unlawful conduct. The three point enhancement here properly
identifies and punishes the incremental harm caused by requiring the victims to submit to an
unlawful criminal prosecution that was completely based on Spaulding’s knowingly false
police reports.
B. The Government’s Motion for an
Upward Departure if 3-level Enhancement is not Upheld
If the 3-level enhancement for obstruction of justice is not upheld, Government will
make a motion for an upward departure of 3 levels for:
A. Causing victims to go to prison, hire attorneys, have their liberty deprived or
constrained and be subjected to state court proceedings. Several victims were
required to perform community service and utilize the benefit of accelerated
rehabilitation under the state system;
B. Causing the victims to suffer psychological and physical harm which is not being
taken into account by the Guidelines; and
C. The racial animus motivating Spaulding’s conduct which is also not being
considered in the current Guideline calculation

7

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 8 of 29

All three of these factors are discussed more fully in the Section 3553 factors.

C. There is no Overlap in the Guideline Enhancements
Spaulding cites two inapposite cases from 2003 that discuss the concept of overlapping
enhancements in the computation of the Guidelines in an effort to avoid a sentence called for
by the advisory Guidelines . See United States v. Jackson, 346 F.3d 22 (2003) and United
States v. Lauerson, 343 F.3d 604 (2d Cir. 2003). Neither of these cases demonstrate that there
is any overlap in the Guideline enhancements calculated by the PSR. Since each of the
enhancements contemplated by the Guidelines here is addressed to a different harm, Spaulding
is not entitled to a variance from the Guidelines, or a departure from the Guidelines on the
basis of overlapping enhancements.
In short, each enhancement contemplated here as a separate and distinct purpose. The
base offense level of 14 reflects that the crimes committed by Spaulding constitute an
obstruction of justice. The six (6) point enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2H1.1(b)(1)(B) is
applicable because it is much worse for a police officer, or any defendant acting under color of
law, to obstruct justice. Hence this enhancement reflects the harm caused by corrupt public
officials who commit an obstruction of justice by abusing their authority under color of law.
As noted previously, the obstruction pursuant to USSG § 2J1.2(b)(2) is addressed to the harm
caused by subjecting victims to state criminal prosecution, something that does not happen
with every federal obstruction of justice charge.

Finally, the enhancement for grouping

addresses the obvious and incremental harm created by virtue of the fact that there are both
multiple victims of Spaulding’s crime and multiple convictions.

Hence, no departure or

variance is warranted by virtue of the purported overlapping enhancements.
8

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 9 of 29

D. There is No Basis for Downward Departure
Based on Extreme Vulnerability to Abuse in Prison
Sadly, Spaulding now seeks to be a viewed as a victim of the criminal justice system
claiming that he will receive harsh treatment in prison because he was formerly a police
officer. It is unfortunate that Spaulding was not able to show such concern for MM, JLA, JE
and XC when he falsely arrested them and subjected them to the criminal justice system.
Spaulding has made a downward departure claim based on his purported “extreme
vulnerability to abuse in prison.” On the one hand Spaulding claims that his conduct is so
minor that it warrants a probationary sentence. On the other hand, Spaulding seems to claim
that he deserves a downward departure because his conduct is akin to the brutality suffered by
Rodney King or Abner Louima. Neither is correct. Spaulding’s conduct is very serious but
does not rise to the level of two of the most widely publicized and infamous American police
brutality cases in recent history. The cases that the defendant relies on most heavily – Koon
and Volpe – are the Rodney King case and the Abner Louima case, respectively. See United
States v. Koon, 833 F. Supp. 769, 785-86 (C.D. Cal. 1993); United States v. Volpe, 224 F.3d
72, 75 (2d Cir. 2000). Clearly, the truly extraordinary publicity of those cases is quite unlike
the situation here. In Koon, “[t]he verdicts touched off widespread rioting in Los Angeles.
More than 40 people were killed in the riots, more than 2,000 were injured, and nearly $1
billion in property was destroyed.” Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 88 (1996).

The

Volpe court noted the “extensive national publicity” (emphasis added). Volpe, 224 F.3d at 74.
Clearly, the attention surrounding the case at hand does not compare.
Nor does this case compare with respect to the level of violence that our country had to
learn about in Koon and Volpe. In Koon, the public saw a videotape that depicted repeated and
9

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 10 of 29

shocking violence. The Koon court discussed the violence at length and noted that the
downward departure was appropriate because of the publicity “due in large part to the
existence of the videotape and all the events that ensued.” The facts of the Volpe case are
particularly sadistic. Our country learned that police had committed aggravated sexual assault
through insertion of a broken broom handle into the victim’s rectum, causing severe internal
injuries.
United States v. LaVallee, 439 F.3d 670, 708 (10th Cir. 2006) does not involve police
officers but former prison guards who had been involved in a conspiracy to abuse inmates.
Unlike the case here, a conspiracy to abuse prison inmates would obviously place put the
defendants at much greater risk.

The evidence in that case showed “that because of the

Appellants' notoriety they were on 23–hour lockdown; and that other inmates threatened the
Appellants' lives and described the types of sexual acts they would commit upon their bodies
once they were dead.” Id. There is no similar record in the case at hand.
Finally, the defendant’s reliance on child pornography cases seems inapposite,
particularly given that another case cited by the defendant, United States v. Kapitzke, 130 F.3d
820 (8th Cir. 1997) clearly establishes that merely being a child pornographer cannot create
eligibility for a downward departure.
The case here is more akin to the cases not cited by the defendant – the more common
cases of civil rights violations by police officers in which no extraordinary downward
departure is found to be warranted. See, e.g., United States v. Rybicki, 96 F.3d 754 (4th
Cir.1996) (district court cannot depart based on extraordinary punishment merely because
police officers as a class suffer disproportionate problems when incarcerated); United States v.
10

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 11 of 29

Colbert, 172 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 1999) (no downward departure warranted in case where offduty police officer violently assaulted inmate and there was “no extraordinary publicity”)
(emphasis added).
E. Downward Departure for Good Works Should be Denied
Spaulding’s claim for a downward departure based on good works is wholly unavailing
and should be denied in its entirety. As an initial matter, Spaulding’s job as a law enforcement
officer was to serve and protect the public. Having misused his power to abuse others, he
should not be permitted to then turn around and seek credit for doing his job. Moreover, the
Guidelines state that Acivic, charitable, or public service; employment-related contributions;
and similar prior good works are not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a departure is
warranted.@ U.S.S.G. ' 5H1.11; see United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 663 (2d Cir. 1996).
Spaulding’s civic, charitable, and employment-related good works are therefore a
Adiscouraged@ basis for downward departure. Where the ground for a requested departure is
Adiscouraged,@ the Supreme Court has directed that Athe court should depart only if the factor is
present to an exceptional degree or in some other way makes the case different from the
ordinary case where the factor is present.@ Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 96 (2006).
Spaulding has not demonstrated, and cannot demonstrate, that any of the factors upon which he
relies upon is present in an unusual or exceptional way.
Departures based on good deeds require very unusual circumstances. Indeed, courts of
Appeals have reversed as an abuse of discretion departures predicated on service to the public
that was more compelling than what Spaulding can offer here. See United States v. Winters,
105 F.3d 200, 209 (5th Cir. 1997) (reversing a downward departure based on the defendant=s
distinguished military service, during which he was twice wounded in combat and awarded
11

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 12 of 29

two Purple Heart medals); United States v. Rybicki, 96 F.3d 754, 758-59 (4th Cir. 1996)
(reversing a departure based on the national service of Aa highly decorated Vietnam War
veteran who had saved a civilian=s life during the My Lai incident and had an unblemished
record of 20 years of service to his country, both in the military and in the Secret Service@).
Spaulding’s good deeds are no so extraordinary that they can support a basis for a downward
departure.
IV.

The Section 3553(a) Factors

A. The Extraordinarily Serious Nature of Spaulding’s Offenses.
Spaulding has been convicted of violating the civil rights of East Haven residents.
Such violations are not only extremely serious crimes by their nature as they implicate
fundamental Constitutional rights, these violations become even more serious when they are
committed by law enforcement personnel operating under color of law. It is difficult to
overstate the devastating effects of civil rights offenses perpetrated by law enforcement
officers, particularly, as is the case here, where those offenses are motivated by race and
ethnicity.

Thus, by any measure, the crimes committed by Spaulding - - including his

conspiratorial actions - - are extremely serious and warrant the imposition of at least a five year
prison sentence rather than the mere tap on the wrist requested by Spaulding.
Spaulding says that he is not a racist. But simply saying that does not make it so. The
evidence in this case overwhelmingly demonstrates his anti-immigrant and discriminatory
biases. Moreover, there is no doubt that officers who commit civil rights violations even
without racial bias, significantly undermine public confidence in the police department and
damage the fundamental legitimacy of police authority in the eyes of the public.

The

legitimacy of the police, or “the judgments that ordinary citizens make about the rightfulness of
12

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 13 of 29

police conduct,” is based on the public view that police officers exercise their authority
appropriately.

Andrew Goldsmith, Police Reform and the Problem of Trust, Theoretical

Criminology 443, 444 (2005). Studies consistently show that public perceptions of police
legitimacy depend on considerations of procedural justice: the extent to which law enforcement
officers make decisions evenhandedly and without bias, acknowledge the rights of those with
whom they interact, and treat people with dignity and respect. Tom R. Tyler, Enhancing
Police Legitimacy, Annals Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci., May 2004, at 84, 94-95. When, as is
the case here, people do not experience police actions as being equitable, their view of the
legitimacy with which police wield authority sharply declines and their support for law
enforcement is eroded. As we heard from various victims/witnesses during this trial, they were
mistreated and abused by Spaulding and many others in the community heard about
Spaulding’s abuse which they believed was directed against the Latino community.
By committing gross violations of residents’ civil rights, Spaulding not only abused his
own authority but his actions inflicted direct harm on those he victimized. His repeated and
abusive criminal and racist conduct jeopardized the public perception that the police in East
Haven have legitimacy as an institution. Based on the many witnesses who spoke to the
Government in this case, it became clear that this police department began to lose their moral
authority from the community’s perspective and there were serious concerns about the basic
integrity of the police department.
The tremendous harm caused to Spaulding’s direct victims was made known during
this trial. His victims were made to suffer physically and emotionally. The victims suffered a
range of terror from the fear of being physically harmed, of harm to family members, being
separated from their families, or losing their economic livelihood. A subset of the East Haven
13

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 14 of 29

community – the Latino residents – believed that they were not welcome or protected in their
Town simply because of their ethnicity.
Spaulding’s abusive acts, however, extended well beyond the direct harm caused to his
victims. Spaulding’s abuse of power had far-reaching negative ramifications for the ways in
which the entire community viewed the East Haven police and badly strained policecommunity relations.

Because of Spaulding’s repeated and abusive conduct that was not

addressed by the leadership of the EHPD, DOJ officials began a civil rights investigation.
Individual officers who were viewed as being generally cooperative with DOJ officials
reported being harassed and threatened within the police department.

After admitting to

speaking with DOJ officials, one officer found a cartoon posted on his locker which read: “You
know what we do to snitches?” Police commissioners who asked questions about the various
disturbing issues that came to light, including Father Manship’s arrest, also reported being
threatened and intimidated. Leaders in the Town of East Haven spoke to the FBI about the
caustic and toxic culture of the police department. DOJ officials who came to conduct the civil
investigation stated that police officers met with them at their hotel and took an aggressive
stance with them. When the DOJ officials mentioned that they wanted to participate in ridealongs with EHPD officers, one EHPD officer advised that they could not guarantee their
safety. When the DOJ officials attempted to conduct interviews at the police department, they
saw photos of rats posted on union bulletin board and were subjected to treatment that they
characterized as attempted acts of intimidation. During the course of the investigation, the FBI
learned that a union attorney contacted a private investigator for the purpose of following
Father Manship. The then police chief contacted Father Manship’s superiors in an effort to
have Father Manship transferred from the area. This Court has already seen police reports
14

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 15 of 29

documenting Father Manship’s activities in East Haven which appear to be a free exercise of
his First Amendment rights. Against this backdrop, it should come as no surprise that from the
community’s perspective, the East Haven Police Department lost its moral authority. It is for
this reason that the Department of Justice believed that it was necessary to seek civil and
criminal redress in this case.
Indeed, research has found that vicarious experience with the police, or learning about
the police through the experiences of others, is an important factor in community attitudes
toward police institutions. Dennis P. Rosenbaum, et al., Attitudes Toward the Police: The
Effects of Direct and Vicarious Experience, Police Q., Sept. 2005, at 343, 360. Here, what
Spaulding and his supporters fail to realize is that the community is much greater than just East
Haven. Thus, the implications of Spaulding’s conduct have far broader effects that extend well
beyond the East Haven borders. The repeated failures by Spaulding and others have caused
harm to all law enforcement personnel throughout the United States. Citizens of Connecticut
and beyond need to know, and surely want to believe, that our system of justice is one that
applies equally to all. Community members look not only to their personal experiences but
also to the collective knowledge imparted by other members of the community. Rod D.
Brunson, Police Don’t Like Black People, Criminology & Pub. Pol’y, Feb. 2007, at 71, 72.
The experiences of even a small number of community members can become woven into the
community’s social fabric, powerfully impacting the views of community members who did
not directly experience the abuse. While we have seen that even a single publicized incident of
police misconduct can have a pronounced effect on the trust and confidence that other
community members have in the police department, here the abuses by Spaulding were
repeated over a lengthy period of time and directed to numerous members of the Latino
15

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 16 of 29

community. There is no better example of Spaulding’s biased policing than the fact that the
only person he permitted to video-tape him without consequences was Fr. Manship. While not
all of the stories of those impacted were told during the trial, as was made clear by the
witnesses who testified, however, these distressing incidents are not quickly forgotten and
resentment toward police institutions can build and fester within the community. Each of the
victims who encountered Spaulding were met with intimidating and harassing treatment. Most
were subjected to verbal abuse and obscenities. Many suffered much more. By way of
example, SA, a United States citizen, has spoken at length to members of federal law
enforcement about the impact that Spaulding’s conduct had not only on him but the negative
impact it had on his children. He spoke about the racial discrimination that he encountered in
his interaction with Spaulding and how he suffered a loss of dignity due to Spaulding’s abusive
and racist treatment.
Studies suggest that negative community perceptions of the police are highly resistant
to amelioration, and tend to persist over a significant period of time. Rosenbaum et al., supra,
at 362. Thus, the unlawful and despicable civil rights violations of even a single officer, like
Spaulding, can significantly damage the community’s support for a police department, with
widespread and long-lasting implications. The reality here, however, is that Spaulding did not
act alone. All of the evidence makes clear that Spaulding, more than any other officer, acted
abusively towards members of the Latino community. But as the trial evidence makes clear,
others in this police department also abused their power and violated the civil rights of others.
Sadly, although complaints about the civil rights abuses were made to the EHPD, the
leadership at that time did not act sufficiently to curtail the conduct. Officer Rybaruk’s
testimony is a painful, albeit sad, reminder that there does indeed exist a code of silence within
16

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 17 of 29

police departments. Thus, when a police officer engages in unlawful and unethical conduct,
others do not feel that they can act or speak up against any other officer. This silence, coupled
with conduct of a single rogue police officer, can spread like a cancer throughout the police
department, compromising and altering the moral compass of other officers. As Edmund
Burke explained "all tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience [e.g.
Officer Rybaruk] to remain silent."
Indeed, Spaulding’s civil rights violations are especially devastating as his conduct was
aimed against Latinos, a minority community, and motivated by flagrant prejudice in a Town
that has already been plagued by prior incidents of racially charged conflict. Many witnesses
testified about the contempt that Spaulding showed which was perhaps best evidenced by the
language that he used when speaking to them. Unremarkably, witnesses in this case -- who did
not know each other -- testified about the similar contempt and degrading language that
Spaulding subjected them to. The damage that this type of police misconduct inflicts on
police-community relations is particularly severe when community members view police
actions as driven by animus toward a certain ethnic or racial group. Research has shown that
members of minority communities are most significantly affected by vicarious incidents of
police misconduct. See Kenneth Dowler and Valerie Zawilski, Public Perceptions of Police
Misconduct and Discrimination, J. CRIM. JUST., no. 35, 2007, at 193, 194.

Simply stated, if

members of a minority community see group members as discriminated against because of
their ethnicity or race and victimized by police, their trust in the police is shattered. It is
therefore not surprising that national and local studies have consistently demonstrated that
members of minority groups, including Latinos, already tend to have significantly lower
confidence and trust in the police. Rosenbaum et al., supra, at 344. Studies show that Latino
17

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 18 of 29

community members are more likely to believe that police misconduct is a common
occurrence, and that abuses of civil rights are widespread. See Ronald Weitzer and Stephen A.
Tuch, Race and Perceptions of Police Misconduct, Soc. Probs., no. 3, 2004, at 305, 320.
Spaulding’s actions therefore cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Rather, the reality is that
it is against this troubled historical background, that the destructive potential implications of
Spaulding’s crimes for the Latino community in East Haven are illuminated. For members of
a minority group, particularly in a Town like East Haven that has had its own history of racial
tensions resulting in tragedy, Spaulding’s actions become part of an accumulated narrative of
discriminatory experience within a minority community. The dissemination of this narrative
can foster the belief among Latino community members that local policing strategies are
motivated by animus, and that the police cannot be trusted by Latino or other minority
residents.

Our society knows all too well that these perceptions of discrimination have

devastating effects in diverse, multicultural societies, fragmenting communities along ethnic
and racial lines. See Alexa P. Freeman, Unscheduled Departures, Hastings L.J., March 1996,
at 677, 683. Where abuses are permitted to occur against members of minority groups,
minority groups become alienated from the rest of the community, isolated by a radically
different perception of the fairness of the criminal justice system and by acute feelings of
marginalization. Id. at 706. The illegitimate acts of police officers like Spaulding who wield
their authority unjustly against members of minority groups thus deeply endanger the
cohesiveness of the diverse communities in which we live.
Beyond making members of minority communities feel targeted, discriminated against
and harassed, however, police misconduct animated by prejudice has a second, equally
damaging implication: members of minority communities feel unable to call upon the police
18

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 19 of 29

for assistance when they need it. See Robert J. Kane, Compromised Police Legitimacy as a
Predictor of Violent Crime in Structurally Disadvantaged Communities, Criminology, no. 2,
2005, at 469, 471. As the testimony of the victims in this case made all too clear, communities
that experience police abuses of the sort perpetrated by Spaulding are thus faced with an
especially cruel dilemma: on the one hand, they feel harassed and persecuted by police
officers, and, on the other hand, they feel that they do not have the protection of the police who
are meant to serve them. Id. at 472. In perpetrating civil rights violations, Spaulding not only
made his victims and their community feel that they were subject to police harassment, but he
also took away from them the fundamental right in a civilized society of calling the police for
assistance in a time of need.
In an era where we recognize the importance of community policing as an effective law
enforcement method, this damage to community-police relations has grave implications for the
ability of the police to function effectively, and consequently, for public safety. Trust and
confidence in police officers is at the root of community cooperation with the police. Thus,
trust and cooperation between police and community members is critical to combat crime. The
decline in community cooperation with the police caused by police misconduct severely
hampers the ability of the police department to perform core crime-control and public safety
functions. As the Court well knows, at the very extreme, police brutality toward members of
minority groups and the resulting breakdown in police-community relations has lead, in
multiple instances in American cities, to riots of enormous destructiveness.
In short, the police depend significantly on cooperation from the community in order to
execute their duties successfully. The perception that the police have legitimate authority is
one of the key reasons that people cooperate with police officers. For community members,
19

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 20 of 29

police legitimacy is synonymous with the belief that police are entitled to require them to obey
the laws and help in crime control efforts. It should come as no surprise that community
members who lack confidence in the police are far less willing to provide police officers with
information about criminal activity.

We have seen all too often that when community

members do not trust that they will receive evenhanded treatment from police officers, they are
more likely to resist police interventions in their communities. Spaulding’s repeated offensive,
racist and criminal conduct put at risk the ability of the police department to do its job, and
thus, his actions created a risk of endangering the safety of the East Haven community. In
imposing sentence here, the United States requests that the Court consider the full range of
devastating consequences that Spaulding risked when he chose to misuse his authority to
violate the rights of those that he, as a public servant, was supposed to protect.
Indeed, many individuals of the Latino community in East Haven did not feel that they
could come forward and provide information to the East Haven police about the abuse they
were suffering because they were made to believe that the police department as a whole did not
want them in their community and were prepared to retaliate against them if they did come
forward. Nevertheless, the East Haven Latino community that was targeted by Spaulding did
not pull away from cooperation with all legal authorities.

Rather, the targeted Latino

community in this case was assisted by courageous advocates and remained determined to try
to document the abuses being perpetrated against its members and to bring this injustice to the
attention of legal institutions other than the East Haven police department such as the
Department of Justice.

The sentence imposed on Spaulding should vindicate these valiant

efforts and send a message that a victim’s decision to come forward and document abuses will
not go for naught. Such a result will serve to promote respect for the law and restore faith in
20

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 21 of 29

the principle that no one, not even a police officer, is above the law.
B. History and Characteristics of the Defendant.
Unlike so many defendants who come before this Court, defendant Spaulding claims
to have a close-knit family, the support of his parents, close relationships with other family
members, the opportunity to pursue a career that he was passionate about, and the support and
loyalty of individuals and friends. Thus, his upbringing and opportunity cannot be the cause
of his criminal conduct. In short, defendant Spaulding knew better than to abuse his position
of power. There is no excuse for a police officer to allow his biased views to corrupt justice.
There is nothing in Spaulding’s past that can be blamed for such attitudes nor anything that
could condone or excuse his conduct.
To the contrary, Spaulding’s education, efforts at volunteer work and other
community engagement should have made him appreciate the problems that racial tension
can cause in a community. As noted above, this police department had been embroiled in
difficult racial conflict prior to this case. It is against this backdrop that Spaulding’s actions
must be judged. In a Town where racial issues between the police department and members
of a minority group have previously existed, Spaulding chose not to empathize with those
who may be bullied. Nor did he use his awesome power to protect others from bullies;
instead he used the power of his badge to bully others.
The fact that he continues to think his conduct can somehow be justified by claiming
he was enforcing the traffic laws is disturbing. That he thinks an appropriate sentence for
sending victims to jail in violation of their Constitutional rights should be a sentence that
includes no jail time for Spaulding is offensive. By all indications, Spaulding does not get it
and may never fully appreciate the damage he has done. Such a lack of moral fiber and basic
human decency does not bode well for Spaulding’s future. Nevertheless, the imposition of a
prison sentence of at least five years may be the only type of message that will enable
Spaulding to begin to understand his flagrant abuses of power, his serious and damaging
21

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 22 of 29

abuse of the trust placed in him by society and his victimization of innocent persons in
violation of the very rights he was duty bound to uphold. That he will never again be able to
serve as a policeman or law enforcement officer is small solace to those he has victimized
while wearing a police uniform.
C. The Court Should Consider Deterrence, Both General and Specific and
Impose a Sentence that will Promote Respect for the Law.

One of the factors the Court must consider in imposing sentence is the need for the
sentence to “afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B).
The Court will also consider the type of sentence that will promote respect for the law.
These two goals of sentencing can be achieved with a prison sentence of at least five years.
Neither of these goals can be achieved by imposing the type of sentence that would be
viewed as the proverbial slap on the wrist.

Indeed, Spaulding’s request for no prison

sentence would be tantamount to a mere tap on the wrist, and would only serve to promote
disrespect for the law by suggesting that police are somehow above the law
A significant prison sentence of at least five years for Spaulding - - a corrupt, abusive,
racist and obstructionist police officer who has no regard for the civil rights of his victims - - can
serve as a powerful deterrent against the commission of these abhorrent crimes.

It is

imperative that men and women in law enforcement do what is right and act free of biases.
The Court’s sentence must send a message to Spaulding and to other law enforcement
personnel that will deter Spaulding and others from misusing and abusing the power
bestowed upon them to enforce the law and protect society.
Although it is correct that Spaulding will never again be a police officer, such a result
is a self-inflicted wound, and not some unforeseen collateral consequence. Surely Spaulding
was capable of understanding that if he committed six federal crimes while acting as a police
22

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 23 of 29

officer including using excessive force, falsely arresting victims and authoring false sworn
police reports to obstruct a federal civil rights investigation, he would not be able to continue
to serve in that capacity. In any event, the fact that Spaulding will never again wear a police
uniform is surely not sufficient to specifically deter Spaulding from allowing his racist and
corrupt moral compass to lead him to offend again. Individual deterrence is relevant because
Spaulding needs to be deterred from ever again permitting his immaturity, his racial animus
and his self-absorption to guide his actions. Such conduct cannot be tolerated in our society
by anyone, let alone a former police officer. Thus, the sentence imposed by the Court should
specifically deter Spaulding from committing any further criminal activity given his deeply
flawed and disturbing racial and ethnic views.
Given his multiple convictions for swearing out false police reports, and thus, his
obvious lack of credibility, his claim that he is not a racist is unconvincing at best, and
patently false at worse. Putting aside all of his conduct, his filthy and degrading statements
to members of the Latino community, the chats between Spaulding and Zullo, he has no
explanation for why he blatantly ignored the directives from Lt. Butler who met with and
told him not to target minorities in East Haven. Instead of hearing and abiding by this
directive, Spaulding tells his friends: “we are cops we provoke, that’s our job. [N]ot to sit
on our heels.”
Spaulding has shown that he ignores inconvenient facts by simply stating that they
didn’t happen. For example, during the trial there was evidence that Spaulding witnessed
Father Manship get arrested, and then he told Father Manship a year later he was not there. At
the same time, Spaulding has the audacity to say “I do not lie.” It is now rather obvious that
Spaulding has a credibility problem in addition to other problems. One can only speculate
whether his credibility problem is tied to his racial animus, his immaturity or his flawed moral

23

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 24 of 29

compass.

Whatever is causing him to repeatedly behave in this manner needs specific

deterrence.
A message of general deterrence should also be considered by the Court. Spaulding’s
civil rights violations inflicted damage not only on his victims and the broader community, but
also on the police department itself and on the broader law enforcement community. Police
officer’s actions, of course, do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, the actions of any given officer
have an affect both on other individual officers and on the culture of the department. When
one officer or a small group of officers like Spaulding and his accomplices engage in serious
misconduct, other officers begin to see that misconduct is tolerated within the department, or,
worse, is part of police culture. In this case, we did see a culture corrupted by an “us against
them” mentality where members of this department engaged in an antagonistic relationship not
only with community members but those who dared to advocate on behalf of the victims or to
criticize or question the police. In fact, during Zullo’s sentencing, one of his supporters opined
that “the good guys” got it wrong here.

What Spaulding, and others like him, fail to

understand is that the role of a law enforcement officer is not to antagonize or seek to create
groups that they can then dehumanize but rather to honor their oath and to do the right thing
free from bias.
We have seen in this case that the code of silence or the blue line is something that
continues to exist. When attempts were made to correct the misconduct, they were met with
resistance by the then leadership in this department. When this type of culture exists, other
officers may very well reach the conclusion that such behavior is acceptable or even desirable
within the department or, at a minimum, not a serious matter. Any officers who may be
tempted to engage in misconduct will undoubtedly be influenced by watching another officer
24

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 25 of 29

participate in such behavior seemingly without consequence. In short, for every officer who
seems to get away with violating the rights of citizens, there is potentially a whole department
of officers who might begin to think that they, too, could get away with it. Thus, there is
clearly a need for the sentence in this case to send a message of general deterrence.
Lenient treatment in sentencing risks sending a dangerous message of tolerance or even
acceptance to officers who may consider engaging in misconduct in the future. The sentence
in this case must dispel any notion that police officer can violate the civil rights of community
members without consequence. A sentence too lenient could weaken the message that police
must respect the rule of law, and could undermine the condemnation expressed in the jury’s
guilty verdicts.

On the other hand, appropriate punishment communicates to all law

enforcement and to the leadership that police misconduct, like that perpetrated by Spaulding, is
a very serious crime that will not be tolerated. This unequivocal message is necessary to deter
any officers and police departments who may have begun to think that Spaulding’s behavior is
acceptable police conduct or “no big deal,” and who may be tempted to engage in the sorts of
heinous acts that Spaulding did. The sentence imposed must show unequivocally that: (a) the
criminal justice system stands strongly against Spaulding’s behavior; (b), no officer can evade
a just punishment if he or she chooses to misuse authority to violate the rights of the citizens
that he or she is charged with protecting; and (c) leadership within police departments would
be wise to immediately act when such violations occur.
D.

Spaulding Has Earned A Sentence Comparable
to Those Imposed on Similarly Situated Offenders.

The Sentencing Guidelines were promulgated, in part, to minimize disparities in
federal sentences. Although those Guidelines are no longer mandatory, the importance of
25

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 26 of 29

eliminating sentencing disparities remains an important factor which the Court must
separately consider pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(7). Given that the applicable Guidelines
range here is 57 to 71 months, the Court should fashion a sentence for defendant Spaulding
that is similar to sentences recommended by the Guidelines.
Spaulding’s memo cites to various press articles from civil rights cases around the
country that provide the Court with little guidance and less factual information to address the
question of disparate treatment. See Spaulding Memo at 21-23. Moreover, such an approach
to sentencing sends a confusing message to the Court whether to impose an individualized
sentence based on the unique facts of a case and the defendant’s history or merely to parrot the
sentence of another judge regarding another defendant and another set of facts without
conducting a thorough comparison of the cases. Not only is the message confusing, it is not
helpful to the Court in fashioning a just sentence.
Thus, while Spaulding asks the Court for an individualized sentencing based on
Spaulding’s history, he asks the Court, providing little or no reason, to ignore federal
guidelines. Spaulding cannot truly expect the Court to completely ignore the Guidelines and
impose a ridiculously lenient non-custodial sentence based on vague summaries. As the Court
can plainly see, these summaries provide little to no useful information about the crime, the
impact on the victim, whether there were multiple abuses or multiple victims, whether racial
animus was involved, whether the defendant cooperated, whether there was a negotiated plea
agreement, or whether the defendant accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct. If the
Court wishes to avoid sentencing disparities, a sentence within the range contemplated by the
Sentencing Commission is more likely to achieve a fair and equitable sentence than a vague
compilation of press releases.
26

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 27 of 29

Spaulding’s reference to the sentence imposed on defendant Zullo is a misguided
attempt to compare apples to oranges. Zullo entered a plea of guilty, accepted responsibility
and spared his victims from having to take the stand and be subject to further victimization and
immigrant bashing under the guise of aggressive cross-examination. Zullo negotiated a plea
agreement that bound his ability to seek a limited sentence and prevented the Government from
seeking a sentence in excess of 24 months. Thus, Zullo, like all defendants who acknowledge
their guilt and plead guilty, was entitled to receive a more favorable sentence than he might
have received after trial. It does not mean that Spaulding, whose conduct was more extensive
and potentially more destructive than Zullo’s conduct, is entitled to the same sentence.
To be clear, defendant Spaulding was certainly entitled to exercise his right to proceed
to trial. He is certainly permitted to deny his guilt in the face of overwhelming evidence. He is
certainly free to refuse to accept any responsibility for his criminal conduct and to explain the
jury’s verdict as some sort of misunderstanding of the motor vehicle laws. What he is not
entitled to, however, is the same result he could have obtained through a negotiated plea
agreement. And to make certain that the record is clear, defendant Spaulding advised a federal
magistrate in this District that he was not accepting a proposed plea offer made to him by the
United States.
Conclusion
Spaulding’s criminal conduct warrants at least a five year prison sentence. The noncustodial sentencing option offered by Spaulding is not only absurd, it is patently offensive
when the Court considers the fact that Spaulding was willing to violate the rights of numerous
victims and subject them to jail in violation of their Constitutional rights. While it may not be
surprising that Spaulding wishes to avoid the same pain he inflicted on his victims, such a
27

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 28 of 29

sentence would only reinforce Spaulding’s misguided and self-absorbed notion that he is above
the law. The United States respectfully requests a prison sentence of at least five years. This
type of sentence would be fair, just and reasonable given the facts of this case and serve all of
the goals of sentencing.
Respectfully submitted,

DEIRDRE M. DALY
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
/S/
KRISHNA R. PATEL
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FEDERAL BAR #ct24433
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
1000 LAFAYETTE BOULEVARD
BRIDGEPORT, CT 06604
(203) 696-3000 (phone)
(203) 579-5550 (fax)
/S/
RICHARD J. SCHECHTER
SENIOR LITIGATION COUNSEL
FEDERAL BAR #ct24238
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
1000 LAFAYETTE BOULEVARD
BRIDGEPORT, CT 06604
(203) 696-3000 (phone)
(203) 579-5550 (fax)

28

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517 Filed 01/16/14 Page 29 of 29

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 16, 2014, a copy of the foregoing was filed
electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this
filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system or
by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic
Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF.

/s/
Krishna R. Patel
Assistant U.S. Attorney

29

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517-1 Filed 01/16/14 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DAVID CARI & DENNIS SPAULDING

:
:
:
:
:

Case No: 3:12CR17 (AWT)

The Government, through undersigned counsel, provided the following
version of events for the above-referenced referenced matter.
I.

Factual Background

Beginning in 2008, Dennis Spaulding began a campaign of harassing and
intimidating business owners and customers of Latino owned businesses located in East Haven,
Connecticut. Communications between Dennis Spaulding and co-conspirator Jason Zullo
indicate that they were both induced to act based on their anti-immigrant views. The
Superseding Indictment charged three incidents. The first two involved Latino victims who were
all arrested by Dennis Spaulding. One of the victims was physically assaulted by Dennis
Spaulding. Another victim was assaulted by Jason Zullo. In 2008, Father James Manship who
is the pastor of Saint Rose of Lima parish in New Haven began to hear from his Latino
parishioners about the abuse they were suffering in East Haven. In 2009, Fr. Manship conducted
a series of meetings at his church where he invited members of Yale law school to assist him to
strategize about how to create change in East Haven. Fr. Manship also met with the then Mayor
and other leaders in East Haven regarding the issues that his Latino parishioners were having
with the East Haven police department. At one or more of the strategy meetings, Fr. Manship
and others decided to gather evidence by documenting stories as well as video-taping police
conduct. On February 19, 2009, Fr. Manship was arrested by co-conspirator David Cari who
arrested Fr. Manship for essentially exercising his (Fr. Manship’s) First Amendment right to
observe the police. On March 3, 2009, David Cari finalized and filed a police report charging Fr.
Manship with interfering and disorderly conduct. The entire police report was a sham intended
to discredit and end Fr. Manship’s support for the Latino community. The Government’s version
is presented in the form of a time-line of the relevant events.

1

EXHIBIT A

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517-1 Filed 01/16/14 Page 2 of 10

The following communications occurred between Dennis Spaulding and
Jason Zullo from May 2008 through July 2008.

Jason Zullo to
Dennis Spaulding

Jason Zullo:
(22:03:05)
Dennis Spaulding:
(22:04:14)

May 1, 2008
[8:23 PM]
This officer likes harrassing motorist, and is aware of wide spread
fraud from persons who have drifted to this country on rafts made
of chicken wings and are now residing on Maint St East Haven and
are registering motor vehicle's to other states. This officer has
observed this mostly with Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Wisconsin,South Carolina, and Washington State registrations.
This is a Violation of CGS14-12(a)(2). Paste this on your
foreheads!!

June 3, 2008
[10:03 PM – 10:04 PM]
FOX 61 and Channel 8 are in front of towm hall.........should I stop
acar full of "locals" in front of them!!!!!!
Ya
June 13, 2008
[9:25 PM – 9:26 PM]

Jason Zullo:
(21:25:46)

LaBambas is packed

Dennis Spaulding:
(21:26:21)

i want to hold over, i feel something good is going to happen tonight
July 30, 2008
[8:21 PM – 8:23 PM]

Jason Zullo:
(20:21:50)
Dennis Spaulding:
(20:23:19)
Jason Zullo:
(20:23:49)

that new store across from la bambas.........Los Amigo Grocery
wonder full, when is the grand opening, i'll have to take the center
not open for buisness yet

In August 2008, based on concerns raised by another East Haven police
officer, then Lt. Henry Butler met with and advised Dennis Spaulding about the racial profiling
laws in Connecticut and made clear to Dennis Spaulding that it was illegal to target individuals
2

EXHIBIT A

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517-1 Filed 01/16/14 Page 3 of 10

based on race. Lt. Butler maintained notes of his meeting with Dennis Spaulding. Lt. Butler
also made attempts to observe Dennis Spaulding while he was on patrol but stated that he was
precluded by co-conspirator John Miller who at that time was very close to the then police chief
Leonard Gallo. Lt. Butler’s made contemporaneous notes about his meeting with Dennis
Spaulding.
October 2008 – Ex. 183 – Ecuador!

Jason Zullo to
Dennis Spaulding

February 21, 2009
[5:39 PM]
ECUADOR....."ECUADOR"....."ECUADOR"....."ECUADOR".....
"ECUADOR"....."ECUADOR"....."ECUADOR"....."ECUADOR"..
..."ECUADOR"....."ECUADOR"....."ECUADOR"....."ECUADOR
"....."ECUADOR"....."ECUADOR"....."ECUADOR"....."ECUADO
R"....."ECUADOR"....."ECUADOR"....."ECUADOR"....."ECUAD
OR"....."ECUADOR"....."ECUADOR"....."ECUADOR"....."ECUA
DOR"....."ECUADOR"....."ECUADOR"....."ECUADOR"....."ECU
ADOR"....."ECUADOR"....."ECUADOR"....."ECUADOR"....."EC
UADOR".....

November 21, 2008 – The first incident charged in the Indictment occurred late in the evening
on November 21, 2008. MM is a male victim who is a native of Ecuador and a United States
citizen. At that time he was the owner and operator of a business called La Bambas, an
Ecuadorian restaurant, which is located on Main Street in East Haven, Ct. MM described a
history of harassment and intimidation of his customers by Dennis Spaulding which began in
Summer 2008 and continued until Spaulding was placed on administrative leave in 2011. That
same summer, Zullo had contacted the liquor commission to report violations relating to La
Bamba. A representative from the State’s liquor commission met with MM at his restaurant and
MM told the representative about the harassment by the East Haven police. The liquor
commission agent advised MM to obtain evidence about the harassment and told MM to take
photographs of the harassment. On the evening of November 21, 2008, MM was informed that
two customers were being harassed by Dennis Spaulding for having out of state license plates.
MM walked outside his restaurant to the back parking lot where MM approached Spaulding who
was seated in his police vehicle with his door open and asked Spaulding to stop harassing his
customers. Spaulding ignored MM. MM walked back into his restaurant and retrieved his
camera and came back outside and took two photographs of Spaulding’s vehicle. When
Spaulding realized that MM had photographed him and/or his vehicle, Spaulding ran to MM,
told him he was under arrest and pushed him to the ground. MM’s trial testimony included the
following account.
So I took the picture and then when I was walking back in, just walking normally, he,
Dennis Spaulding, ran up behind me and he said to me, (In English) “You don’t take a
picture of me.”
3

EXHIBIT A

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517-1 Filed 01/16/14 Page 4 of 10

“I’m going to break your fucking face. Fucking Spanish people.” And he continued to
repeat that every so often.
And that was when I said, “Why do you want to break my face?” And he threw me into
the car. I went into the car head first. And then he began to kick me (indicating) a lot of
times. And then I myself tried to get myself into the car because he wasn’t putting me in
the car. Because using the kicking blows, he was trying to use that to get me inside. He
kicked me all over the place.
After MM was arrested, he was eventually transported to the police station. During the
transport, Spaulding told him that he (Spaulding) did not want Latino owned businesses
operating in East Haven. At the police station, MM went through booking procedures and the
booking photo depicted some of the injuries that he sustained. Spaulding also took his camera,
deleted the photos and threw MM’s camera, rendering it inoperable. MM was placed in a jail
cell for a period of time. MM’s sister, WR, was one of the family members that went to the
police station that evening to inquire about her brother. When WR went to the police station she
asked about her brother. At trial she testified that when she approached the window to ask about
her brother, she was directed to wait. She then heard a male voice say: “’Fucking Spanish
people.’ And then they laughed.” Dennis Spaulding was among the officers in the group that
made the statement but WR does not know if he said those words. When asked about Spaulding,
WR stated that she knew who he was because:
Well, because I’ve always seen him around in different places, in the parking lot of La
Bamba, across from La Bamba, near La Bamba, and TJ Maxx, a place further up, Guti’s.
I always saw him on Main Street.
MM was subsequently released. When WR saw her brother, she quietly walked outside
and asked a different brother to call for an ambulance. An ambulance arrived in front of the East
Haven police station and transported MM to Yale hospital. The hospital records indicate that
MM was pushed to the ground. The diagnosis sets forth that MM was: (1) assaulted; (2)
suffered a lip laceration; and (3) suffered contusions. WR took photos of her brother’s injuries
prior to his transport to Yale. Those photos were offered in evidence. In addition, MM kept his
clothes from that evening which still have some of the blood stains. There was some
discrepancy about whether MM had also been kicked by Spaudling. MM claims that he was
repeatedly kicked while on the ground and while Spaulding placed him in the police car but the
hospital records indicate that MM was not kicked.
Spaulding prepared a police report regarding the incident. The police report contained
many false statements about why MM was arrested. As a result of the arrest and the filing of the
police report, MM appeared in state court and obtained accelerated rehabilitation. The
equivalent of a six month probationary period was imposed. MM testified that after his court
appearance, Spaulding began to follow him and twice stopped him for no reason at all. MM
became frightened and concerned that if more false allegations were made against him, he could

4

EXHIBIT A

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517-1 Filed 01/16/14 Page 5 of 10

lose his liquor license and his business. Consequently, MM traveled to and remained in Ecuador
to avoid any further contact with East Haven police officers.
Prior to leaving for Ecuador, MM met with Fr. James Manship and others at a meeting
held at Fr. Manship’s church in New Haven to discuss the issues relating to harassment of
Latinos in East Haven. MM did not disclose in any detail what had happened to him but went to
the meeting because he was in touch with other business owners who were also being harassed
by Dennis Spaulding and Jason Zullo.

November 22, 2008
On the same day that MM was released from the hospital, the following chat occurred
between Spaulding and Zullo.

Ex. 184 –
November 22, 2008
[10:10 PM - 10:11 PM]
Jason Zullo:

(22:10:34)

Dennis Spaulding: (22:11:14)

curtains closed at labambas......isnt that a violation??
na i dont think so, after hours were kicking the door in

January 9, 2009
In January 2009, there were several incidents involving Latino victims. First, on January
9, 2009, Spaulding entered SA’s home in East Haven, Ct. SA is a resident of East Haven and
owns a taxi company located in New Haven. SA has reported that Spaulding had been to his
home several times prior to January 9, 2009 claiming that his dog, a cocker spaniel, was causing
a disturbance. SA resides on a busy street where there is a four-lane road directly in front of his
home. SA told FBI agents that Spaulding had come to his home on many prior occasions and
made insulting and offensive statements to his wife in front of his young children. SA owned a
three-story home and rented other floors to Latinos. SA believed that Spaulding harassed him
and his family because he rented to other Latinos.
On September 9, 2009, Spaulding entered SA’s back yard, walked into some buildings in
the back of his property (without a warrant and without consent) again claiming that there were
some reports of issues relating to his dog. Segundo then testified:

5

EXHIBIT A

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517-1 Filed 01/16/14 Page 6 of 10

That’s when I told him, I think, you know, “You know, there is a sign saying no
trespassing.” And I told him, you know, “What are you doing? You’re trespassing.”
That’s when he started saying, you know, he hate immigrants because they lower the
price of the house.
“You know what, Officer? You know what you’re doing? You’re doing racial profile.”
And he told me, you know, “You're a smart guy. You know the laws.” I say, “Yeah, I
know the laws.” And he told me, “Okay, if you know the laws, why don’t you get a
lawyer?” That’s where I got so upset about that.
Q. You told him that what he was doing was racial profiling?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And then after that, am I correct that he asked you – he mentioned something about a
lawyer?
A. Yeah. He told me if I know the law, why don’t you get the lawyer.
Q. And what, if anything, did you say to him?
A. Yes, I tell him, “I’m going to get the lawyer, I need your name.” That’s when he
started backing up, he went to the patrol.
Q. You said when you asked him for his name, he started backing up?
A. He was backing up, he didn’t give me the name.
After SA’s encounter with Spaulding at his home, Segundo went to see his lawyer who
was in town and told his attorney what had happened. His attorney had told him to get the name
of the officer. Later that same day, SA stopped at a store in East Haven to buy ice-cream for his
daughter. While he was there, SA saw Spaulding stop a car and the driver was Latino. SA saw
Spaulding and asked Spaulding for his name. Spaulding told SA to wait in his car because
Spaulding was working. SA waited for about 20-30 minutes and then approached Spaulding. At
that point, Spaulding threatened to arrest SA. Segundo saw the Latino operator who had been
pulled over by Spaulding in the store and saw Spaulding’s name on the ticket that had been
issued to the motorist.
January 15, 2009 - Ex. 185
January 15, 2009
[9:12 PM - 9:14 PM]
Dennis Spaulding:
(21:12:39)
Jason Zullo:
(21:13:16)
Dennis Spaulding:
(21:13:47)

did you spray oc in my car??
I WOULDNT WASTE IT!!
ok, i can smell it
6

EXHIBIT A

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517-1 Filed 01/16/14 Page 7 of 10

Jason Zullo:
(21:14:27)

NAH, THATS ALL THE MEXICANS U GET IN THE
BACKSEAT!!

January 21, 2009
On January 21, 2009, there was another incident involving both Dennis Spaulding and
Jason Zullo. On this evening, four friends, JLA, JE, GXC and WS decided to drive to La Bamba
to have dinner. All four individuals were born in Ecuador. At the time of this incident only JE
had legal status in the United States. JLA and JE were both passengers in the back seat. While
driving on Main Street, they began to be followed by Spaulding. As they pulled into La
Bamba’s parking lot, Spaulding turned on the lights to his police car and approached their
vehicle. The driver, WS, did not have a driver’s license.
JLA testified that the following exchange occurred.
“Fucking Spanish, all you drive without license.”
“Do you want to be arrested?” he said. I said that “I didn’t do anything wrong. If that’s
what you want to do, you can arrest me.”
And you indicated the first thing he asked you is, “Do you want to get arrested?” Did I
have that correct?
A. Yes, that’s what he said.
Q. Is the only thing that you said to him, “Why are you treating us that way?”
A. That’s the only thing I said. That’s all I said.
Q. Did you do anything?
A. Nothing.
Spaulding arrested JLA and then Zullo arrested GXC. At trial, JE testified that
Spaulding arrested all four of them when he asked for his license back. JE was arrested when he
asked Spaulding why Zullo was arresting his friend. WS was arrested for not having a license.
At the police station, Zullo pushed GXC’s head to the wall and struck JLA’s head into
the wall. JLA suffered an injury and began to cry on the floor. Another police officer came to
assist JLA and placed him in a cell. After JLA was in the cell, Zullo again tried to grab him and
ripped off his shirt. All four men spent the night in the jail as bail was set at $2,500 per person.
Spaulding prepared a police report that contained false and misleading statements about the
arrest of JLA and JE and filed the police report. All four men appeared in state court the
following day where they were released by the state court judge without having to post bail.
They retained attorneys and eventually received accelerated rehabilitation.

After their initial appearance, JLA, JE and GXC spoke to a friend, Elio Cruz about what
had happened to them. Elio Cruz arranged for them to speak to Fr. Manship. After hearing their
7

EXHIBIT A

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517-1 Filed 01/16/14 Page 8 of 10

stories, Fr. Manship contacted Yale law school and others and began to organize meeting with
members of the Latino community that had been victimized by East Haven police officers.
February 8, 2009 – Ex. 186

February 8, 2009
[7:45 PM - 7:47 PM]
Dennis Spaulding:
(19:45:07)
Jason Zullo:
(19:47:00)

labamba's only has 5 cars
Thats 5 cars to many!!

February 13, 2009 – Ex. 187

Jason Zullo:
(18:12:58)
Dennis Spaulding:
(18:13:45)

February 13, 2009
[6:12 PM - 6:13 PM]
If you werent profiling meximercans you would has the
grab!!
lol your messed up , i think he is a hispanic

On February 13, 2009, FJM was video-taping Spaulding conduct a car stop of a Latino
driver. Spaulding saw FJM and told FJM: “You have every right to video tape but do it from a
safe distance.”
After video-taping the stop, FJM spoke to the driver and then approached Spaulding, he
questioned why Spaulding put “white” as the race. Spaulding explained that Hispanic was not a
designated race. Based on this interaction, Spaulding was now aware that someone was
observing him and concerned about race issues.
February 19, 2009
On February 19, 2009, there were two incidents that occurred at My Country Store
located on Main Street in East Haven. MCS is a grocery store owned and operated by a couple.
MC, the wife, primarily works at MCS. On that day, MC’s brother, FC, was sitting in MC’s car
with a friend. Spaudling approached the vehicle and upon learning that FC had no driver’s
license, placed FC in handcuffs and placed him in his (Spaulding’s) police vehicle and Spaulding
had the car towed. Other police officers, including David Cari, arrived at MCS while the car was
8

EXHIBIT A

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517-1 Filed 01/16/14 Page 9 of 10

being towed.
When various individuals approached Spaulding and Cari to provide them with the
paperwork for the vehicle, they were either ignored or threatened with arrest. When FC was
detained, MC placed a call to ask FJM for help.
After, FC was detained, he was later released. Immediately after FC’s detention,
Spaulding noticed license plates that were screwed into the wall. Spaulding then began to
“investigate” whether MC and her husband were illegally selling the license plates. Spaulding
and Cari directed MC’s husband to remove the license plates and were supervising their removal.
While Cari and Spaulding were supervising the removal of the license plates, Fr.
Manship came into the store. Spaulding saw Fr. Manship and approached him and reminded him
about their conversation six days earlier.
Believing that he was properly maintaining a safe distance, Fr. Manship began to videotape what the police officers were doing. Cari then immediately looked at Fr. Manship and
asked him – “Sir, What are you doing – -Is there a reason why you have that camera on me?”
Fr. Manship told Cari that he was filming what was happening in the store. Cari then made a
comment “I will show you what I will do with that camera” and arrested Fr. Manship. Fr.
Manship was transported to the police station by then Sgt. John Miller where Fr. Manship was
then photographed, fingerprinted and charged with interference and disorderly conduct. Fr.
Manship was released without a bond but his camera was not returned to him on that date. On
March 3, 2009, the evening before Fr. Manship’s arraignment in state court, Cari filed his police
report which contained many false statements about what had happened. The falsity of the final
report can also be seen by the efforts Cari went to as he drafted numerous versions of the report
in an effort to discredit Fr. Manship.
At Fr. Manship’s arraignment, his attorney filed a motion to preserve, among other
things, the video camera and were subsequently able to get the camera and the video that Fr.
Manship made of his encounter with Cari. The recording undermined Cari’s police report and
the state judge overseeing the criminal case dismissed the charges.
Even after Fr. Manship’s arrest, officers continued to harass members of the Latino
community and those who advocated for them. In fact, MC testified that after a press conference
on or about March 12, 2009 where Fr. Manship’s attorneys released the video-tape recording to
the press, MC was intimidated by East Haven police officers including Jason Zullo. After MC
returned to her store, police vehicles continued to circle her store. When she finally left to go
home, MC and her husband were immediately stopped by Zullo.
Finally, in late February or March, a woman RL testified that she and her husband owned
Los Amigos grocery store which was located directly across from La Bamba restaurant. RL
testified that she began video-taping Spaulding because he was stopping her customers directly
outside her store and at times towing their cars. In fact, she provided hours of footage to
Univision which aired a short story about the harassment that Latinos were suffering in East
9

EXHIBIT A

 Case 3:12-cr-00017-AWT Document 517-1 Filed 01/16/14 Page 10 of 10

Haven. One day, Spaulding saw RL video-taping him from inside her store. Spaulding walked
into her store, told her that she could not video-tape and demanded the video recorder.
Spaulding then began searching the store for the video-recorder. He was unable to find it and
left the store.

Respectfully submitted,
DEIRDRE M. DALY
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/S/______________________________
KRISHNA R. PATEL
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY
Federal Bar No. ct24433
United States Attorney’s Office
1000 Lafayette Boulevard, 10th Floor
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604

/S/________________________________
RICHARD J. SCHECHTER
SENIOR LITIGATION COUNSEL
Federal Bar no. ct24238
United States Attorney’s Office
1000 Lafayette Boulevard, 10th Floor
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604

10

EXHIBIT A