William Waters et al. v. City of New Haven et al. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The plaintiff, William Waters, seeks to recover damages against the City of New Haven and the Police Department personnel as the result of his motor vehicle being demolished and personal injuries sustained by himself and his minor child, Asim.

The claims arose out of an alleged improper “police chase” on June 23, 2003, wherein a vehicle evading the police went out of control, climbed a curb, and struck the Waters vehicle.

Two separate versions of what took place were presented to the Court.   Two occupants of the “chased” vehicle testified for the plaintiff.   They were Daniel Hamlett and Rufus Hunter.   The police action was described by Officer Luis Rivera, a named defendant.

The episode ensued after the New Haven Police Department received at least three phone complaints that five gun shots had been heard in the area adjacent to the Clemente School.   A potential perpetrator was seen leaving the area on foot and a white Lincoln was reported to have left the scene at a high rate of speed, possibly with a window shot out and containing three or four persons.

When Officer Rivera saw a white Lincoln on the Boulevard, he turned off Columbus Avenue and fell into a line of cars behind the Lincoln, noting it had four occupants.   He called the license plate number into headquarters.

At this point, the officer was unaware if there was a victim or if the Lincoln was involved, but felt it was a “felony stop.”   Neither flashing lights nor a siren were activated, but he attempted to keep the Lincoln in sight while he waited for assistance to appear.   He stated it would not be a proper police procedure for him to attempt to stop the Lincoln while alone.

The officer lost sight of the Lincoln when it swerved to the right, after which it struck the plaintiff's vehicle.

Officer Rivera and the two occupants of the Lincoln all agreed that at no time did Rivera activate his overhead lights or siren.   All three agreed that the traffic was substantial.   Only in the speed of the Lincoln and the cruiser was there disagreement, with the officer stating traffic was moving along at no more than 35 miles per hour.   The occupants described both vehicles moving at 60 to 70 miles per hour.

DISCUSSION

I

The testimony of the two occupants of the Lincoln is significant in that neither one describes a police action which suggests a “chase.”   In fact, Rufus Hunter testified he told the driver to slow down but he kept on driving erratically and at no time did the police cruiser “tail gate” the Lincoln.

Though both occupants described a second police cruiser as making a u-turn to join in the “chase,” this vehicle apparently took no action and was some car lengths behind the Rivera cruiser in a line of cars.   Officer Rivera denied a second police vehicle was in the line of cars.

II

The testimony of Officer Rivera and the two occupants of the Lincoln was remarkably similar.   They differed over the second cruiser as noted above, but the only other area of disagreement was over the speeds at which Rivera and the Lincoln were travelling.

All three described traffic as substantial.   While Rivera estimated his speed at 35 miles per hour, the two occupants claimed they were moving at 60 to 70 miles per hour.   Neither one saw that speed on the speedometer.

The court does not find that estimate of the speed achieved to be reasonable.   In fact, under the conditions described by the occupants, speeds approaching 60 to 70 would have had to produce a rash of collisions.   The police report and Rivera's testimony support this conclusion.   The Court is also familiar with the roads in question, having driven them virtually all of his life, and finds that claim to be virtually impossible to believe.

III

The plaintiff cites the fact that no arrests were made after this episode concluded and that the original assailant had apparently eluded pursuers and made his escape.

Thus, he argues in hindsight, Rivera had no reason to approach the Lincoln.

Of course, the high-speed exit of the Lincoln from the scene of a shooting could hardly be ignored.   In fact, the police had received numerous reports of five shots being fired.   The escape of a potential assailant hardly supports the view that the episode is history and the police should move on to other business.

The Court concludes that this is totally irrelevant to this issue in this case.   Officer Rivera behaved in a restrained and professional manner and elected a course of action which was safer for the public in the area while still checking to see if a serious crime or crimes had been committed.

CONCLUSION

As it noted at the termination of this trial, the Court is sympathetic to these plaintiffs who did nothing to create their misfortune.   However, there has been no showing that Officer Rivera did anything to cause this unhappy event.   Nor is there anything to suggest that somehow the New Haven Police Department was at fault for misfeasance or nonfeasance in its handling of this matter or in its training or preparation to meet such potentially dangerous episodes.

Judgment may enter for the defendants, City of New Haven, Francisco Ortiz, and Luis Rivera.

Judgment may enter for the defendants Daniel Hamlett and William Allis, it having been proved at trial that the defendant Hamlett was not driving the Lincoln involved, thereby negating those allegations and counts directed at these two defendants.

Anthony V. DeMayo, J.T.R.

DeMayo, Anthony V., J.T.R.