New Haven Register - Embattled Milford cop has long discipline record

Embattled Milford cop has long discipline record

Meggan Clark , Register Staff
02/04/2005

MILFORD — The embattled city police officer who faces dismissal for allegedly tipping off a suspect that he was about to be arrested has a copious discipline record dating back to April 1988, less than four months after she graduated from the police academy and joined the force. Officer Mona Lucas’ disciplinary records encompass 34 separate incidents; nine resulted in suspensions. Three of the suspensions occurred after Lucas signed a "last chance agreement" to continue working for the department after she was suspended in 1999 for steering towing business in exchange for favors.

The Police Department released Lucas’ employment records to the New Haven Register Thursday as a result of a Freedom of Information request. The Board of Police Commissioners will consider whether to terminate Lucas at a special hearing Monday night.

Milford Police Department spokesman Officer Vaughan Dumas said the department would have no comment until after Monday’s hearing.

John Williams, Lucas’ attorney, said her alleged transgressions are indicative of a department vendetta against her, not poor performance on her part.

"You show me a cop who’s an active cop and I’ll show you a cop who makes mistakes sometimes," he said. "In fact, what the record really shows is that she’s been written up for every little thing."

Files show Lucas repeatedly has been written up for falsifying reports, lying to investigators, going AWOL on the job and other transgressions.

She got her first written reprimand, in April 1988, for exhibiting poor judgment after getting her cruiser stuck at Silver Sands State Park. By August 1988, she had racked up six disciplinary actions, including a one-day suspension for ignoring a breath test that indicated the suspect she stopped was not driving under the influence.

She also was written up and banned from the communications room for six months for having a 20-minute personal telephone call while on dispatch duty, rebuked for failing to report for duty, failing to log prisoner property and leaving her gun unattended outside a department bathroom.

Lucas additionally was cited for unplugging a camera monitoring the lockup to plug in a television; allowing a prisoner to keep matches, which the prisoner used to set the cell block on fire; failing to notice a crack pipe under the back seat of her cruiser; rifling through another female officer’s locker, insubordination and filing bogus complaints about her superiors, department records say.

In April 1991, Inspector William Shultz enumerated Lucas’ "extensive shortcomings" in a letter to then-Police Chief Thomas Flaherty, citing numerous mistakes in Lucas’ investigations. The errors, Shultz wrote, "(stem) from assumptions on her part ... (or) outright failures to confirm facts and circumstances" and "seriously undermin(e) the credibility of both Officer Lucas as well as her reports."

"The results of such poor work products includes, but is not limited to, lost cases, credibility deficiencies, embarrassment and civil litigation," Shultz wrote.

Other supervisors wrote that Lucas was unwilling to accept criticism, passing blame to other officers and occasionally dropping the name of her husband, Capt. Christopher Edson, when confronted.

In 1999, Lucas was suspended for eight months without pay for directing business to a group of tow-truck operators in exchange for gifts and favors, documents say. As part of the acts, department internal documents say, she falsified incident reports, lied to investigators and was verbally abusive to members of the public.

After returning to work, records show, Lucas was disciplined for sloppy paperwork and citizen complaints.

Williams said the department shouldn’t have released Lucas’ records.

"We got a notice a day ago that we had to object within seven days," he said. "I think that it’s a clear violation of the Freedom of Information Act not to give the employee a reasonable opportunity to review the materials and object to their release. ... We were supposed to be given a chance to review (the personnel file) ... We were not."