Overview:
A Connecticut man is coming forward with disturbing claims about a state trooper’s conduct following a head-on car collision. Despite being the victim of the crash, the man says he was treated as a suspect, threatened with arrest, and subjected to an invasive and inappropriate pat-down. The interaction was partially recorded on video, including false statements by the trooper regarding fault — and ends abruptly when the trooper forcibly took the victim’s phone mid-recording. A formal complaint has been filed, and all traffic charges against the man were later dropped. The trooper’s identity is known to Presence News, and a follow-up investigation is underway.
Litchfield, CT – On a quiet rural road in Connecticut, a driver’s ordinary day ended in a violent head-on crash. The collision, which occurred when another vehicle crossed the yellow line and struck his car at the driver-side door, could have left lasting physical scars. Instead, it was the events that followed — the police response, not the crash — that have stayed with him.
Follow up article below:
“I was still shaken up, trying to understand what happened,” the man recalled in an interview with Presence News. “Then the troopers showed up, and that’s when it got worse.”
According to the man, the other driver immediately admitted fault at the scene, apologizing repeatedly and taking responsibility for crossing into the wrong lane. But when the first trooper arrived, she began questioning the victim in a tone he described as accusatory, at one point asking irrelevant questions about whether the vehicle had been rear-ended.
“It didn’t make sense. I was the one who got hit head-on. I wasn’t confused — the other driver was clearly in the wrong,” he said.
Then a second trooper arrived on scene — and the situation escalated. The man said this officer, whom he later identified in a complaint, began repeatedly demanding proof of insurance. Disoriented and still processing the crash, he couldn’t find the physical insurance card.
“No Insurance Card? You’re at Fault”
That’s when the trooper made a legally dubious claim: that not being able to produce the card made him “at fault” for the accident. The exchange was captured on video.
Still in shock, the man questioned why the officer needed his insurance information at all, especially since the other driver had openly admitted fault at the scene and was clearly the one who crossed the yellow line.
“I told him, ‘Why do I have to show anything? I’m the one who got hit — she admitted she wasn’t paying attention.’ But he didn’t care. He just wanted to threaten me.”
The trooper then escalated further:
“If you don’t want to listen, this can be interference. This is an arrestable offense — for not having an insurance card.”
According to Connecticut law, failure to present proof of insurance may result in a minor citation — not an arrest — and does not determine fault in a collision. The officer’s statement was legally false, coercive, and intimidating.
The man was cited for lacking insurance and an unregistered vehicle. In fact, all charges filed against him were eventually dropped as the vehicles were registered and insured, the other driver’s insurance company accepted full responsibility for the crash.
The Pat-Down Incident
What happened next is the subject of a formal misconduct complaint.
As the interaction grew more hostile, the trooper allegedly ordered the man to step onto a grassy area beside the road, spread his legs, and submit to a pat-down. According to the man, the officer then touched only his groin — not his waistline, pockets, or upper body — in what he described as an invasive and unnecessary physical search.
“He told me it was a pat-down,” the man said, “but he didn’t check anything except my crotch. It wasn’t about safety. He was smiling with a weird grin on his face like he has done this many times. It felt like he was asserting dominance — or worse.”
There was no arrest. The man was not armed. And he had fully complied with the officer’s requests.
Questions About the Body Camera
Another piece of the video captures the trooper discussing his body-worn camera. When the man asked why the camera wasn’t blinking red to indicate it was recording, the officer replied:
“It doesn’t blink red. Why would it blink red? I don’t want it to blink red. Why would I want it to blink red?”
The comment — caught on the man’s phone — raised immediate concerns about the trooper’s attitude toward transparency. Body-worn cameras are meant to document police interactions and build trust through visibility. The officer’s response suggests a willful desire to record discreetly, without the subject’s awareness.
“Everything about his energy told me he didn’t want to be held accountable,” the man said. “He didn’t want to be recorded, and he definitely didn’t want me recording either.”
As the victim continued filming, the trooper’s behavior escalated again. Eventually, the officer grabbed the phone from the man’s hands, cutting the recording short. That moment, too, was partially captured in the video above.
“I wasn’t under arrest. I wasn’t aggressive. He just didn’t want me documenting what he was doing,” he said.
No Help from the Chain of Command
Following the incident, the man filed a complaint with a victims assistance office. But when he attempted to elevate the issue within the police department, he was met with resistance — and, at one point, laughter. A supervisor allegedly dismissed the complaint outright, while a commanding officer made light of the issue in a follow-up conversation.
“I felt humiliated twice — once by the officer, and again by the people who were supposed to hold him accountable,” he said.
What Happens Next
Presence News is withholding the name of the trooper and the department at this time. A follow-up article is currently in development and will include:
- The full complaint filed
- Additional information from the scene
- The identity and background of the officer involved
- Reactions from the department and potential civil rights advocates
If other individuals have had similar encounters with Connecticut state troopers, especially involving improper searches or questionable roadside behavior, they are encouraged to contact the Presence News tip line confidentially.
Final Word
What began as a straightforward car accident spiraled into a deeper violation. The man involved hopes that by coming forward, others will feel empowered to speak up — and that someone, somewhere, is watching the watchers.
“You don’t expect to be hit by a car, but you really don’t expect to be violated by the people who are supposed to help you afterward.”
How some State Troopers are treating citizens on a national level currently:
Explore similar articles:
