Friday, October 16, 2026
Good morning, {{first_name|there}}.
Most agencies measure accountability by one number: cases closed. This week, a Connecticut oversight report shows why that number can lie. Six investigations, several sustained findings, discipline issued, and the problems kept coming. Let's talk about the step that usually goes missing.
In today's brief:
Corrections: Sustained, disciplined, closed, and still unresolved
Technology: San Diego PD reopens the door to AI-written reports
HR: When your investigation file becomes Exhibit A
You Make the Call: The reprimand was issued. Was the retraining?
INTEL BY THE NUMBERS
60
Business days CT DOC policy ordinarily allows for a Security Division investigation
3+ yrs
Time one 2022 incident took to reach final disposition
$500K–$3M
Estimated value of SDPD's AI report-writing inquiry
CORRECTIONS / ACCOUNTABILITY
Sustained. Disciplined. Closed. Still a Problem.
An employee is accused of misconduct. Internal Affairs investigates. Some allegations are sustained, management issues discipline, and the case is closed.
But the complaints continue. Months turn into years. Eventually an independent oversight agency reviews the history and finds something more troubling than the original allegations: the agency can't show its investigations were completed on time, or that its corrective measures were ever carried out.
What happened:
On October 14, the Connecticut Office of the Correction Ombuds released a report on Dr. Francesco Lupis, a Department of Correction staff physician.
The review covered six Security Division investigations, incident reports, credentialing records, disciplinary files, and 27 federal lawsuits naming the physician.
Earlier DOC investigations substantiated conduct violations, including inappropriate workplace behavior and inaccurate health-record documentation. Other allegations were unsubstantiated, closed without discipline, or still need independent clinical review.
Several matters took 16 months to more than three years to resolve. One September 2022 incident wasn't closed until November 2025, against a policy that ordinarily allows 60 business days, with documented extensions and monthly status reporting.
DOC placed the physician on administrative leave after the report, pending further review.
Why it matters: The records didn't separate when investigative work ended, when disciplinary review happened, and when the case was finally closed. Without that, commanders can't tell where a delay occurred or who owns it. And while prior cases produced counseling, written discipline, and corrective recommendations, the Ombuds found no record establishing that those measures were fully implemented. The finding identifies the problem. Command has to make sure the agency responds.
The IA play: Before your next command meeting, pull five sustained cases from the past two years and ask:
Was it completed within the required timeframe? Track received, authorized, investigation complete, and final decision as separate dates, because each one has a different owner.
Were extensions documented and approved? A delay can be legitimate. An undocumented one looks like neglect to a reviewer, an arbitrator, or a jury.
Was the disciplinary decision completed and recorded? Investigative completion and disciplinary completion are separate milestones.
Were corrective measures identified and assigned? If no one owns the follow-up, it doesn't happen.
Is there proof they were implemented? If you can't answer from your own records, neither can your agency when an oversight body asks.
Bottom line: Closing an investigation is an administrative milestone. Demonstrating that the agency responded is the accountability outcome.
Editorial note: The Ombuds distinguished substantiated conduct violations from unresolved patient-care allegations. The 27 lawsuits don't themselves establish liability, and administrative leave is not a final disciplinary determination.
Source: Connecticut Office of the Correction Ombuds, Report on Dr. Francesco Lupis (Oct. 14, 2026); CT Mirror coverage.
TECHNOLOGY / AI
San Diego PD Banned AI Reports. Now It's Shopping for Them.
Last December, the San Diego Police Department told officers they could not use generative AI to write police reports. On July 31, the same department issued a request for information seeking an AI tool to help officers and investigators draft them, with an estimated contract value of $500,000 to $3 million.
It's less of a reversal than it looks. The original memo only barred unapproved AI platforms. SDPD says it is in an exploration phase, cites front-line staffing shortages, and says it would consult elected officials and the community before adopting anything. Nearby Chula Vista already uses AI to write reports.
Zoom out: California's SB 524 now requires agencies to disclose when AI helped write a report and to keep the material behind it for audits. Meanwhile, a study led by criminologist and former officer Ian Adams found AI-generated reports scored significantly worse on accuracy. For IA, the question isn't whether AI arrives. It's who answers for the error when an officer signs a draft they didn't write, and whether your agency can reconstruct what the AI produced versus what the officer changed.
HR / WORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS
When Your Investigation File Becomes Exhibit A
In Stein v. Transdev, an autonomous-vehicle roadside employee got caught in a late-night Los Angeles street takeover. He took photos and texted his supervisor about the hazard. His employer fired him for mobile-device use and leaving a vehicle on an active roadway. A federal court held that a jury could see the same conduct as protected safety reporting.
The investigation drew the court's attention. The decision-maker testified she didn't recall reviewing key communications, yet the record suggested she had access to them. A co-worker in the same incident wasn't fired, and nothing explained why.
The takeaway: Your file should show what the decision-maker reviewed, who was interviewed, how credibility was weighed, and why similarly situated employees got different outcomes. If it doesn't, assume opposing counsel will notice.
Around the Beat
Quick hits from across public safety.
Police: Several Charlotte-Mecklenburg officers were recommended for termination or resigned after a racist group text surfaced during a state probe into another officer's alleged misuse of Flock data. (WBTV)
Fire: Jerome Township, Ohio, trustees voted unanimously to fire their fire chief for appearing in uniform in a political ad and for insubordination. (FireRescue1)
Corrections: A federal Bureau of Prisons officer at MDC Brooklyn was indicted for allegedly taking bribes to let contraband into the facility. (U.S. Attorney, EDNY)
Dispatch: Newly released 911 recordings show emergency help after Tennessee's failed execution of Christa Pike was delayed about 30 minutes while dispatch supervisors treated the call as false. (AP)
HR & Employment Law: Maryland's Worker Freedom Act, effective Oct. 1, bars penalizing employees or applicants who skip mandatory meetings on political or religious matters, with penalties up to $25,000. (Jackson Lewis)
Courts: A federal judge in Colorado sent a failure-to-protect claim against three corrections employees to a jury after an inmate was stabbed by a cellmate. (Colorado Politics)
Questions IA Commanders Should Ask
Can you name, for every open case, who owns the next step and the date it's due?
When a sustained finding comes with a corrective recommendation, who in your agency confirms it was done, and where is that recorded?
When the same employee draws repeat complaints, does anyone pull the prior files and ask whether the earlier fixes worked?
Intel Picks
Worth your time this week.
Read: The Investigation's the Thing: a roundup of recent cases where courts judged the employer's investigation, not just the underlying claim.
Use: This week's five-case audit. Run it on your own sustained files before an oversight body does it for you.
Train: National IA and HR training for investigators, supervisors, and HR professionals. See upcoming courses.
You Make the Call
Eight months ago, Officer Reyes received a sustained finding for discourteous conduct. Discipline was a written reprimand plus required de-escalation retraining. This week, a new complaint alleges nearly identical behavior. Your records show the reprimand was issued, but you find no record that the retraining ever happened. What's your first move?
A) Investigate the new complaint on its own and treat the prior case as closed
B) Open the new investigation, and separately verify and document whether the prior corrective measure was completed
C) Recommend termination based on the pattern
D) Hold the new complaint until the retraining is completed
Answer at the bottom of this email.
Leadership Takeaway
The question isn't simply whether your agency investigated the misconduct. It's whether your agency can demonstrate what it did about it.
If case tracking and corrective-action follow-through are soft spots in your agency, check out the national IA and HR training available from one of our trusted partners.
Know an investigator, supervisor, or HR pro who should be reading this? Send them your personal link — referrals help us keep the brief free.
You've referred {{rp_num_referrals}} colleagues so far. Your link: {{rp_refer_url}}
You Make the Call — Answer: B. The new complaint stands or falls on its own facts, so it still gets a full investigation. But the agency prescribed retraining and can't show it happened. Progressive discipline assumes the employee received the corrective opportunity the agency imposed, and reviewers such as arbitrators and civil service boards often look for exactly that. Document the gap, find out why it happened, and fix the follow-up process, not just the officer.
Sources & Case Law Referenced
Connecticut Office of the Correction Ombuds, Report on Dr. Francesco Lupis, Staff Physician, Connecticut Department of Correction, Oct. 14, 2026 (see pp. 10–12). OCO reports page
Until next week,
George A. Perez
Retired Miami-Dade Police Department Asst. Director
Founder | The Internal Affairs Intel Report
