Lawsuit Claims New Haven Officer Used Excessive Force
A New Haven Internal Affairs report found that a police officer used excessive force when tasering Rodney Williams Jr. Now, Williams has sued the officer seeking punitive and compensatory damages.
November 22, 2017 at 01:06 PM
4 minute read
A man who was hospitalized after being shot with a Taser in March by a New Haven police officer is suing the officer for monetary and punitive damages.
Rodney Williams Jr. was apprehended March 8 after reportedly driving a motocross bike erratically and performing tricks with a group of other riders on motorized dirt bikes and quads. During Officer Michael Haines' pursuit of Williams, who acknowledged he had disobeyed traffic signals, Williams reportedly dropped his motorcycle and began running away from the officer. While on foot pursuit, Haines deployed the stun gun to stop Williams.
An Internal Affairs investigation conducted by the New Haven Police Department was released in May, and noted that a case of a fleeing suspect alone does not constitute justification for use of a stun gun, and that an immediate threat to the officer or the public must be present to justify deployment. The report concluded that an excessive-force complaint filed by Williams was valid.
In a civil suit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in New Haven, Williams claims the shock from the stun gun caused him to “fall to the ground, inflicting painful injuries,” including “bruises, contusions, lacerations, a concussion and other closed-head injuries.” The lawsuit adds Williams ”has suffered emotional distress, incurred medical expenses and temporary and permanent injuries, all to his personal and financial detriment.”
Williams also claims Haines violated his civil rights “to be free from unreasonable force, which rights are secured to the plaintiff by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as enforced through Sections 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code.”
The plaintiff's attorney, John Radshaw III, said he is “confident a jury will reach the same conclusion as Internal Affairs, and that is that Michael Haines used excessive force against Rodney Williams.”
The Internal Affairs report noted several off-road vehicles were witnessed on State Street when Williams dropped his motorcycle in the road and began running from Haines. Williams was struck in the head and back with the prongs of the stun gun. He was treated at Yale-New Haven Hospital for a laceration to his chin that required stitches and bruising and swelling above his left eye.
In an interview with investigators, Haines said he had been able to get within 5 to 10 feet of Williams, but had been unable to grab him. “As Officer Haines exited his vehicle, Williams came back, picked up the dirt bike and tried to run with it,” the report states. “Officer Haines stated he had been within 10 feet of Williams but could not explain why he was unable to grab him. Officer Haines ran after him and ordered him to stop multiple times, but Williams did not comply.”
Haines was “now approximately five to 10 feet from Williams but still could not grab him. Officer Haines drew and deployed his taser striking Williams.”
The report also states that Haines acknowledged “Williams had not displayed any threatening behavior toward him once off the dirt bike and did not present a danger to the public,” which is an essential component for justifying use of a stun gun.
Haines was also found to be in violation of General Order 7.06, which outlines standard procedures following the use of a stun gun. This includes downloading information from the weapon onto a computer as soon as possible to determine the exact time the weapon was fired, how many times it was fired and the duration of each hit. Haines reportedly did not download the required data until more than a month after the incident. Haines also did not file a timely “use of force notification form,” the report stated.
Internal Affairs also cited Haines' supervisor, Sgt. Jason Rentkowicz, for being in violation of the same order, for not ensuring the necessary reports had been completed by Haines.
As of Wednesday, Haines had not identified an attorney to represent him in the matter. Neither he or interim Police Chief Anthony Campbell responded to a request for comment.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute readFederal Judge Weighs In on School's Discipline for 'Explicitly Copying AI-Generated Text' on Project
When Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250