Case Law & Resources: Connecticut
Citation
Issue Presented & Facts
Nicasia v. Mickens, No. CV146022088S, 2016 WL 4203104 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 8, 2016)
Whether an officer's activities involved discretionary or ministerial acts. If a discretionary act, then governmental immunity applies and defendant is immune from liability for negligence arising out of his discretionary acts.
​
Plaintiff (P) was driven by his mother to the hospital for a mental health emergency. P refused to leave the car. P attempted to drive away and struck a police car. Defendant, a police sergeant, fired at P's car, striking P.
Holding
Held governmental immunity applies to the police officer defendant because the self-defense statute does not create a ministerial duty. Section 53a-22, which authorizes police to use deadly force, sets no specific required responses to specific situations but rather contains reasonableness tests. The statute does not dictate any actions that must be performed in a prescribed manner without the exercise of discretion.
​
Case involves interpretation of current Connecticut statute, which is effective until March 31, 2021.
​
Reference to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-22.
State v. Smith, 73 Conn.App. 173 (2002)
Whether at trial the state met its burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant police officer's defense that he acted in self-defense.
​
Defendant, a police officer, after engaging in foot chase with the victim, arrested and handcuffed victim. While victim was lying on the ground with the officer straddling the victim, the officer shot the victim. No witnesses observed a struggle between the officer and the victim.
Held in part that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to permit the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the state disproved the officer's defense of self-defense under the statute governing the use of deadly force by police officers. Held that the test used for evaluating these claims is a "subjective-objective test"-- the jury must determine whether the defendant in fact believed the use of deadly force was necessary and whether that belief was reasonable. Case remanded for a new trial due to improper exclusion of expert testimony as to the defendant's state of mind.
​
Case involves interpretation of current Connecticut statute, which is effective until March 31, 2021. Amended statute imposes an "objectively reasonable under the circumstances" standard.
​
Reference to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-22.
Case Law
Resources
Citation
Summary and Notes
Curriculum issued by the Police Officer Standards and Training Council requires 4 hours of de-escalation training for basic training.
Relevant Excerpt
N/A
Requires that use of force be "de-escalated immediately, once the offender is in custody or as resistance decreases" and that verbal warnings be used when "tactically feasible."
N/A