Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00987-CFD

Document 19-9

Filed 05/21/2004

Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ________________________________ JOSEPH INTURRI, ET AL : CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiffs : 3:03 CV 987 (CFD) v. : : CITY OF HARTFORD, ET AL : MAY 21, 2004 Defend ants : _________________________________: STIPULATION OF FACTS The Plain tiffs and D efendan ts, by and throug h their respec tive attorneys, here by stipulate to the follow ing facts fo r purposes of summ ary judgmen t: 1. Plaintiff Joseph Inturri is a United States citizen and has been a sworn police officer for the City of Hartford since 1983. 2. For a number of years Joseph Inturri has sported visible tattoos on his arms. 3. Plaintiff Stephen Miele is a United States citizen and has been a sworn police officer for the City of Hartford since 1987. 4. For a number of years Stephen Miele has sported visible tattoos on his arms. 5. Plaintiff Matthew Rooney has been a sworn police officer for the City of Hartford since 1988. 6. For a number of years Matthew Rooney has sported visible tattoos on his arms. 7. Plaintiff Darren Besse has been a sworn police officer for the City of Hartford since 1990. 8. Since approximately March 2003 Darren Besse has sported visible tattoos on his arms. 9. Plaintiff Mark Castagna has been a sworn police officer for the City of Hartford since 1987. 10. Since approximately March 2003 Mark Castagna has sported visible tattoos on his arms.

Case 3:03-cv-00987-CFD

Document 19-9

Filed 05/21/2004

Page 2 of 6

11. Defendant City of Hartford is a municipal corporation organized pursuant to the laws of the State of Conne cticut. 12. Defendant Bruce P. Marquis was the Chief of Police for the City of Hartford from December 2000 to January 2004. 13. Since at least 1985 Hartford Police Department General Order 6-15 provided standards and requirements fo r sworn personn el uniforms and ap pearance. (Exhibits A , B, C, D). 14. In 1997 G eneral Ord er 6-15 w as revised to address, inter a lia, tattoos, provid ing in Section III C. 5, Tattoos that are visible to the public and deemed offensive, immoral, or presenting an unprofessional appearance, as deemed by a supervisor, shall require the officer to co ver said tattoo with a ban daging type m aterial or a long sleeve shirt in accordance w ith the Uniform of the Day Standards . (Exhibit B). 15. In 1999 General Order 6-15 was revised again. Section III C. 5 was amended to read Tattoos that are visible to the public and deemed offensive, immoral, or presenting an unprofe ssional app earance, as deemed by the Chief of Police, sh all require the o fficer to cover said ta ttoo with a b andaging type material or a long sleeve shirt in accord ance with the Uniform o f the Day Standards . (Exhibit C). 16. On or about October 17, 2002 Detective Keith Knight of the Hartford Police Department wrote a letter to Michael Wood, the President of the Hartford Police Union, raising several concerns, and provided copies of such letter to City of Hartford officials, includin g the po lice chie f, the m ayor, dep uty mayor, c ity manag er and c ouncil m embe rs. (Exhibit E). 17. The four-page October 17, 2002 letter from Keith Knight to Michael Wood devotes the following lines to the issue of tattoos worn by Hartford police officers: Lets debate the issue of a white police supervisor along with two other white police officers wearing a 2

Case 3:03-cv-00987-CFD

Document 19-9

Filed 05/21/2004

Page 3 of 6

racist tattoo of a white supremacy group called the Arian Nation. The tattoo which is a spider web tattoo, wh ich I am informed by the Department of Corrections who monitors such groups that the tattoo symbolizes race hatred of non-whites and Jews. I know the U.S. Co nstitution give s everybody the r ight to free sp eech and expression , but this is unacceptable for a police officer to wear in plain view knowing that it offends and what it stands for. Where is the enthusiastic debate on this issue? 18. Following receipt of the October 17, 2002 letter City Manager Lee Erdmann informed Bruce P. M arquis that the issue of the spider w eb tattoos was a con cern of the mayor s and at least some council people and asked him to bring it to resolution. 19. Bruce P. Marquis consulted with the Office of the Corporation Counsel and also sought the opinion of a contact at the Federal Bureau of Investigation in addressing the issue of the spider web tattoos. (Ex hibit F). 20. The command staff of the Hartford Police Department discussed the matter, sought the advice of their attorney, and decided that, pursuant to Hartford Police Department General Order 6-15, the spider web tattoos should be covered while the officers who sported them were on duty or in uniform. 21. In reaching this decision the command staff of the Hartford Police Department considered the following: ÿÿ The A nti-De famati on Le ague w eb site re ferenc es to spid er web design tattoos.

(Exhibit G) ÿÿ The pop ulation of th e City of Ha rtford is pred ominantly, alm ost seventy pe rcent,

minority. ÿÿ Throughout the ye ars, r ace r elations i n the City o f Ha rtford an d between th e city s

population and the H artford Po lice Depa rtment hav e occasion ally been troub led, with 3

Case 3:03-cv-00987-CFD

Document 19-9

Filed 05/21/2004

Page 4 of 6

certain events, such as the shooting of an African-American youth by a white police officer, acting as triggers. ÿÿ The Hartford Police Department employs minority police officers and civilian

employees. ÿÿ The Hartford Police Department is subject to a consent decree in the case of

Cintron v. Vaughan. ÿÿ The Hartford P olice Department C ode of Con duct addresses, in Article X II,

discrim inatory/dis paragin g action s by Hart ford P olice D epartm ent em ployees. ÿÿ A major concern was that in a predominantly minority community, responding

police officers who sport tattoos that have been associated with white supremacist groups may result in an explosive situation, endangering both the officers and the com mun ity. ÿÿ Chief Marquis had inquired of and received a response from a contact at the

Federal Bureau of Investigation Legal Instruction Unit addressing the legality of ordering that spider web tattoos be covered. 22. On April 14, 2003 Bruce P. Marquis revised Section III.C.5 of General Order 6-15 as follows: The Ch ief of Polic e has the au thority to order pe rsonnel to c over tattoos th at are deem ed as offe nsive and /or presenting an unpro fessional ap pearance . Personne l shall cover th e tattoo with either a flesh tone, navy blu e or white type material that matches the uniform shirt or wear a long sleeve shirt in accordance w ith the Winter Uniform of th e Day Standard. (Exhibit D).

23.On April 14, 2003 Bruce P. Marquis issued a memorandum to all sworn personnel to cover all visible spider web tattoos while in an on-duty capacity or wearing the Hartford Police U niform. (Exhibit H). 4

Case 3:03-cv-00987-CFD

Document 19-9

Filed 05/21/2004

Page 5 of 6

24. Following the issuance of the April 14, 2003 memorandum, plaintiffs, all of whom sport visible spider web tattoos, have complied with the order to cover them while in an on-duty capacity or wearing the Hartford Police Uniform. 25.At all relevant times, there was a collective bargaining agreement in effect between the City of Hartford and the Hartford Police Union, of which plaintiffs were and are, members. A p ortion of this agreemen t is attached as Exhibit I. 26.Such collective barg aining agreement p rovides that discipline shall be meted out for just cause. 27. Plaintiffs have not b een disciplin ed in any ma nner and have not lo st any pay as a resu lt of the issuance of the April 14, 2003 memorandum. 28.The April 14, 2003 memorandum was issued pursuant to official policy. In issuing the April 14, 2003 m emorandum Bruce P. M arquis was acting as a f inal policy maker. 29. On or about June 5, 2003, Elizabeth Horton Sheff, the Council Majority Leader, was quoted in th e newsp aper as saying : It [tattoo] cou ld be a pictu re of a dog chasing a c at and [if] it was offensive, it should be covered . 30.The defendants have no evidence that the plaintiffs sport their spider web tattoos as symbols of a ny racist or anti-Se mitic philoso phy or stateme nt. 31.There are several other police officers in the Hartford Police Department, including one or more of the plaintiffs, who sport tattoos other than the spider web design. They have not been directed to cover these other tattoos. N o concerns regardin g those other were brought to the attention of the Hartford Police Department command staff. 32.The Hartford Police Department is subject to a consent decree in the case of Cintron v. Vaughan, which was bro ught in 1969 and settled in 1973. (Exhibit J).

5

Case 3:03-cv-00987-CFD

Document 19-9

Filed 05/21/2004

Page 6 of 6

PLAINTIFFS,

DEFENDANTS,

BY__________________________ JON L. SCHOENHORN, ESQ. Schoenhorn & Associates 97 Oak Street Hartford, CT 06106 Fed. Bar No. ct00119 Tel. No. (860) 278-3500 Fax. No.(860) 278-3500

BY____________________________ HELEN APOSTOLIDIS, ESQ. Assistant Corporation Counsel 550 Main Street Hartford, CT 06103 Fed. Bar No. ct05534 Telephone (860) 543-8575 Facsimile (860) 722-8114

6