Opinion ID: 776746
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Filming of the Trooper Candidate Testing Videos

Text: 9 At some time during the fall of 1992, several administrative officials of the Connecticut State Police (CSP) and the Connecticut Department of Administrative Services began to revise the testing procedures for trooper candidates at the CSP Training Academy (police academy). Captain Leonard, who had just assumed command of the CSP Bureau of Selections and Training, 1 supervised this ongoing project along with Dr. Martin Anderson (Dr. Anderson), the Chief Personnel Psychologist for the State of Connecticut. A particular focus of this project was the development of several testing videos, designed to screen out those trooper candidates with poor observational and communicative skills. In essence, trooper candidates would be required to view a videotaped scene of a crime or other representative real life scenario that CSP officers typically confront and then to explain what they had observed. As originally planned, the video scenes would include a variety of circumstances: a depiction of a person driving while intoxicated, a man with a weapon who stops and robs a victim, a simple trespass, a static crime scene, and a scene with a distraught victim. 10 During this project, Leonard met with Dr. Anderson and with Pearl, who was the trooper responsible for the production of training and public service videos. Although Pearl had several supervisors at the police academy, Leonard directly supervised Pearl in connection with the testing videotape production. 11 Pearl, unfortunately, had a history of inappropriate or otherwise problematic behavior with female civilians while on duty. Pearl's personnel file contains four separate improper incidents in a seven-year period, two of which bear mentioning for our purposes. In 1989, Pearl was given an unsatisfactory performance evaluation report for photographing several young women in swimsuits in a private bedroom while filming a public safety announcement. In 1983, a woman filed a formal complaint against Pearl, alleging that he made numerous unwanted and improper advances toward her and improperly touched her when he escorted her to and from the hospital following her epileptic seizure. These incidents, however, all occurred well before Leonard assumed command. 12 Although the incidents were described in Pearl's personnel file, at no time prior to the incident involving Poe did Leonard review Pearl's personnel file. 2 Leonard was unaware of, and was not informed by his predecessor 3 of, any performance or disciplinary issues involving Pearl at any time prior to the incident involving Poe. 4 In his affidavit, Leonard indicated that it is not the policy or practice of the CSP for supervisors newly assigned to supervisory positions to review the personnel, disciplinary or internal affairs files of subordinate employees without some justifiable reason to do so. Leonard Aff. ¶ 11. Leonard also testified during his deposition that while outgoing supervisors and their replacements may discuss informally any pending personnel problems, the CSP had no formal policy of outgoing supervisors providing such information to their replacements. 13 Unaware of Pearl's history, Leonard gave him blanket permission to make any arrangement that Pearl saw fit for filming the scenes. Although Leonard did not supervise any of the actual filming by Pearl, he viewed the draft videos Pearl produced. Of particular relevance to this appeal and as pressed by Poe is the static crime scene video, produced before the incident involving Poe. This crime scene features a motel room in disarray, with beer bottles and articles of clothing strewn about, and a gun on the bed. As Pearl, the cameraperson, films the inside of the bathroom, he eventually focuses on bloodstains on the wall and the body of a gagged, female victim in the bathtub with her clothes in disarray. 14 Poe emphasizes two portions of the video: a focus on a bra on the bed and a lingering shot on the victim's upper thigh region. The entire crime scene lasts for approximately one minute and forty-five seconds on the testing video. During that time, Pearl pans the camera to the bra on the bed for approximately one-half of one second, and later returns to focus on the bra for approximately two seconds. Pearl also focuses on other articles of clothing in the room. For example, he focuses on a pair of men's black socks on the floor for one second. In between the shots of the bra, Pearl films the disorder by the dresser for approximately fifteen seconds. Pearl then moves into the bathroom, where he focuses on the bathroom sink, located opposite from the tub, for approximately eight seconds. Pearl then spends a total of thirty-four seconds filming the female victim who is lying in the tub, with one leg extending outside of the tub. The victim is wearing a cropped, short-sleeve T-shirt and what appears to be a white pair of shorts that is hiked to her upper thighs. Pearl lingers for approximately seventeen seconds on the victim's lower body, with a close-up on her upper thighs. He then pans out to include her legs and pans up to show her clothed upper body with a final focus on her head for another six seconds. 15 After viewing the static crime scene video, Leonard did not express any concern nor question Pearl about the scene. Although he knew that the woman playing the victim was a motel employee, and not a CSP officer, Leonard did not discuss any specific procedure that Pearl should follow when filming a video with civilian participants. 5 16 Upon his completion of the static crime scene video, Pearl's next task was to film a scenario involving an armed robber robbing a convenience store. Although the scene originally contemplated a male robber, Pearl suggested to Leonard during their meeting that the role be recast as a woman in order to make the scene atypical. Pearl told Leonard that a friend (Poe) of Pearl's fiancée would play the robber. Pearl testified in his deposition that, during this meeting, he remembered discussing the fact that we wanted the female robber to display `a lot of cleavage,' in order to distract the testing candidates from the threat at hand. Leonard did not object to or question Pearl about this last suggestion. 17 Pearl invited Poe to the police academy, suggesting that she dress provocatively so that her appearance would be distracting to the testing candidates and that she bring several changes of clothing in case the clothing she wore was not appropriate for the look he wanted to achieve. After Poe arrived at the police academy wearing a skimpy low-cut blouse, Pearl directed her to change her clothing, specifically requesting that she lose the bra. Pearl suggested that she change clothes in his office, told her where to stand, and left the room. Once Poe removed her shirt and bra, she noticed that a video camera sitting on a shelf was videotaping her. Poe brought the tape to the CSP, which investigated the incident and terminated Pearl. 18