Panel grants continuance to question Norwich officer, denies in-person phone inspection request and orders executive session for minor testimony

A professional licensing panel granted a short continuance so respondent counsel could call a Norwich Police Department officer to explain inconsistencies between a Department of Children and Families (DCF) report and a sworn statement from the minor patient's mother.

The panel denied the respondent's request to conduct portions of the hearing in person for the purpose of inspecting the cellular phones of the minor and the minor's mother, citing concerns about authority under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), privilege, HIPAA protections and the practical difficulties of inspecting private devices in a public administrative hearing. Chairman Wolf told counsel, "Attorney Satti, your request for in person hearing at this time has been denied." Linda Fazina, representing the Department of Public Health, said the department had "no objection" to sealing a video exhibit that showed minors and recommended continued protections for evidence involving children.

Why it matters: The continuance allows respondent counsel to question a police officer about what he relayed to the DCF care line and how that account compares with the mother's sworn statement, which counsel said contains "very large inconsistencies." The panel concluded authentication of the body-worn video already in evidence does not require the officer's presence, but the officer can still be called to resolve apparent inconsistencies in the DCF report.

Key facts: The panel reviewed and admitted several exhibits (board exhibits 9–11 and multiple redacted respondent exhibits) and recommended placing Exhibit L (a video) under seal because it included images of minors. Counsel discussed subpoenas directed at the minor and the minor's mother; respondent counsel said subpoenas sought communications that could include texts or other messages relevant to what the minor or mother told others after the event. Department counsel cautioned that communications with therapists and privileged material are protected and stressed that the UAPA does not plainly authorize the panel to inspect private devices.

Panel guidance and outcome: Panel members and the hearing officer advised against the panel or its members scrolling through witnesses' phones and recommended alternative methods to obtain device contents, such as screenshots or other narrowly tailored production. The panel instead denied the in-person inspection request without prejudice to renewal later and ordered that testimony from the minor and the mother continue in executive session. The panel asked counsel to confirm availability for two potential future hearing dates — Nov. 21 (morning) and Dec. 4 (afternoon) — and recessed briefly to allow scheduling and coordination with the Norwich Police Department.

What was not decided: The panel did not rule on the substance of the allegations in the statement of charges. The decision to deny an in-person device inspection was procedural and limited to the present request; the respondent may renew the request later or pursue other remedies to obtain device content. Any disputed evidentiary questions about privileged communications or the content of phones will be addressed consistent with applicable law and the panel's direction.

Next steps: Counsel were instructed to confer about availability for the proposed Nov. 21 and Dec. 4 dates and to coordinate with the Norwich Police Department about the officer's availability. The hearing will resume remotely unless the panel later approves an in-person session under narrowly specified conditions.