Connecticut Supreme Court Rules for Newtown in Shooting at Hospital by Unstable Man
The state's high court finds in favor of Newtown in a case involving an unstable man who shot a nurse. The man went to police headquarters asking to be taken to the hospital, but was never searched by police.
December 22, 2017 at 02:04 PM
3 minute read
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 6-1 Wednesday in favor of Newtown police in a case that tested the definition of “arrest” following the 2010 shooting of a Danbury Hospital nurse.
The state's high court upheld a lower court's ruling that the police department's arrest policy applied solely in a criminal context, and the town was not liable for the actions of a mentally unstable man who walked into police headquarters asking to be taken to the hospital. Stanley Lupienski, who was 85 at the time, told police he was hearing voices and was short of breath. He was rushed to the hospital, where he later pulled a gun from underneath his hospital gown and shot nurse Andrew Hull.
Hull had stepped in front of Lupienski to prevent him from shooting others, police said.
The crux of the case was whether police should have searched Lupienski before taking him to the hospital, and what constitutes an arrest. The high court upheld a summary judgment ruling that police had no duty to search Lupienski because he was never arrested under the department's arrest policy or Connecticut General Statute 17a-503(a).
The majority opinion, written by Justice Carmen Espinosa, concluded an arrest only applies in a criminal context, and the term “custody” did not denote criminal custody under the arrest policy.
The plaintiffs eventually moved to amend the complaint to claim the police had a duty to search Lupienski pursuant to the department's prisoner transportation policy. The high court also struck that down.
“The text of the transportation policy having indicated its purview was criminal and did not implicate mental health custody,” Espinosa wrote. “Mr. Lupienski was not in custody or arrested within the meaning of that policy and it was therefore inapplicable.”
In his dissent, Justice Dennis Eveleigh said police had a duty to search Lupienski.
“Under the policy … the duty of an officer to search a person who had been taken into custody was not left to the judgment or discretion of the officer,” Eveleigh wrote. “The defendant admitted these statements and then added the policy applied when someone was arrested.
“In my view, it is clear that the policy defines an arrest to be whenever someone is taken into custody,” Eveleigh added.
Hull, a former Marine, was shot in the sternum, neck and left hand. Today, he works in the hospital in a different capacity, according to his attorney, David Rosen.
“At this point we are considering whether to request reconsideration, but in any case the most important fact about this case for me is that it has been an enormous privilege to represent a true hero,” said Rosen, of David Rosen & Associates in New Haven.
Aaron Bayer, one of two attorneys for Newtown, called the ruling a prudent decision.
“This is a case in which the police department was properly protected by governmental immunity because there was no mandatory requirement to conduct a search,” said Bayer, of Wiggin & Dana. “It would have been troubling to find that a mentally ill person in need of psychiatric help would have been treated like a criminal and an arrested person.”
Lupienski was charged with first-degree assault, first-degree reckless endangerment, illegal discharge of a firearm and carrying a pistol without a permit. He died in October 2010 after suffering a stroke.
Assisting Bayer was Tadgh Dooley, also of Wiggin & Dana.
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
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