Former Seymour Police Officer Surrenders Certification

SEYMOUR – A former Seymour police sergeant subject to five internal affairs investigations in two years voluntarily surrendered his Connecticut Police Officer Certification.

The move means the former officer, Jonathan Martin, cannot work in law enforcement in Connecticut. However, he can apply to get his certification back next year. 

His name will be included on a national list of decertified officers, and he will appear on the state’s Police Officer Standards & Training (POST) website.

“Jonathan Martin has voluntarily surrendered his certification and the case has been closed,” Richard Green, a POST spokesman, told the Valley Indy via an email.

The Valley Indy left a message with Martin’s lawyer.

Martin was a Seymour police officer from 2007 until 2021.

His track record led the Seymour Board of Police Commissioners to fire him on Oct. 25, 2021.

Just before retiring, former Seymour Police Department Chief Paul Satkowski wrote a letter to the state Department of Emergency Services & Public Protection asking that POST take away Martin’s law enforcement certification.

An April 2 letter from Michael A. Francis, POST’s certification compliance officer, shows that Martin initially tried to fight Satkowski’s request by asking for a contested hearing.

However, a pre-hearing conference was held March 19 and a deal was struck that avoided a contested hearing.

“During the pre-hearing conference, an agreement was reached under the terms Jonathan Martin surrenders his police certification, and the reason for revocation to be noted on the POST website and the NDI (National Decertification Index) as ​“voluntary surrender,’” according to Francis’ letter.

Under state law a decertified officer cannot apply for certification again for two years.

However, Martin’s decertification date was set as April 2023, meaning he can apply for certification again in April 2025. Milford Police Chief and POST Council Chairman Keith Mello said no decertified officer in Connecticut has reapplied.

“The clock started ticking from the date decertification was retroactive,” Mello said. ​“He can reapply (for certification) but whether he gets it or not is another story. He’s got to come in front of the council and convince them that he should be allowed to regain certification. I don’t recall anyone ever doing that.”

The article continues after the three images showing the letter.

Former Chief Satkowski said the result is just.

“The documentation sent to POST Council was compelling to convince a reasonable person that the individual should not remain a police officer. He can’t be a police officer and that’s all we care about,” Satkowski said.

A Valley Indy investigation published in October 2023 looked at Martin’s five internal affair reports along with his long history of disciplinary problems.

Martin had filed a series of grievances against the town. A settlement was unanimously approved by the Seymour Board of Selectpersons in February 2023. Officials said the settlement was cheaper than fighting Martin in court. 

Some of the terms included:

*Martin is considered to have voluntarily retired from the police department as of Feb. 1, 2023.

*Martin was paid $105,000 (as back pay from Oct. 25, 2021 through his retirement date of Feb. 1, 2023).

*A signed letter from the current chief of police stating Martin was able to retire in​‘good standing.’

*All the internal affair investigations against him were closed. 

*Martin was issued a retiree identification card.

*Martin agreed to never again seek employment with the Town of Seymour.

*Martin agreed to not file lawsuits against the Town of Seymour.

The Record

One of the IA reports stemmed from Martin’s 2020 arrest for domestic violence. The case was sealed by a court, according to the IA report. However, Martin was placed on one-year probation, suspended for six months without pay, and demoted to patrolman as a result of the internal investigation].

Here is a synopsis of the other IA investigations involving Martin:

* Feb. 2019: A fellow officer alleged that Martin, as a supervisor, was creating a hostile work environment, showing other officers in Martin’s​“good graces” preferential treatment while giving others undesirable beats; making disparaging comments about an officer, and failing to act in a timely manner involving a domestic violence incident. 

Martin denied the officers’ allegations.

The Seymour police commission found Martin ​“in violation of truthfulness” and ​“behavior unbecoming of a police officer.” He was given a five-day suspension without pay.

* June 2019: Martin was accused of showing a sexually explicit video containing stripper footage from a bachelor party on his cell phone to several fellow officers, including female officers, while at work. An anonymous letter was sent to then-Deputy Police Chief Steve Prajer to investigate the complaint. The report said the author of the letter wished to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation from Martin, the whistleblower’s supervisor. 

The officers who were shown the video said they were in​“disbelief and offended” by Martin’s behavior, and that his actions as a supervisor were​“inappropriate.”

Martin denied having any knowledge of the video.

As a result of the investigation, the Seymour Police Commission suspended Martin for 12 months without pay and barred him from working as a field training officer for the department.

* February 2020: The domestic dispute mentioned above.

* September 2020: Two Seymour officers filed a complaint against Martin for allegedly interfering with an investigation during a motor vehicle stop while Martin was off duty. 

The officers alleged Martin tried to influence the outcome of the officers’ investigation of a motor vehicle stop that allegedly involved a local bartender who Martin said always​“take care of us (police officers).” 

The woman who was pulled over failed a field sobriety test, and allegedly called Martin while being questioned by the arresting officers.

The complaint alleged the woman had her cell phone partly wedged under her leg and the arresting officer recognized Martin’s name on the phone screen. Martin showed up not long after the woman was pulled over, and allegedly told the arresting officers the woman was​“a good girl” who takes care of the police at her place of employment. 

The officers alleged that Martin sent them​“intimidating and harassing” texts the day after the motor vehicle stop, and asked if they were proud of themselves. The officers expressed concern about future retaliation from Martin.

Martin denied any wrongdoing.

As a result of the investigation, the police commission suspended Martin for nine months without pay.