Rivera v. Town of New Fairfield

Background

Humberto Rivera, Jr. sued the Town of New Fairfield, David Koonitsky, Jamie Olsowy, David Tharas, James King, and Deputy Sheriff Thomas Varbero in two related actions. Rivera alleged that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by entering and detaining him in his home after a 911 call concerning his young daughter. He also brought state-law claims against the Town for trespass and false imprisonment. Rivera had voluntarily dismissed his due-process and negligence claims.

The incident began after Rivera’s daughter told her mother that she was afraid because Rivera had been drinking and asked her mother to pick her up. The mother called 911 and reported that Rivera had a history of domestic violence and was not allowing the child to leave. Connecticut State Troopers entered Rivera’s home, spoke with the child and Rivera, and concluded that the reported domestic-violence situation was not active. Because the home was in New York, they contacted New York authorities. New Fairfield Officer Koonitsky then entered and spoke with Rivera. Deputy Varbero arrived later, entered through the front door, briefly looked into the master bedroom, and spoke with Rivera. Rivera alleged that Varbero threatened that Rivera would “end up in the hospital” if he was not quiet. Varbero denied making that statement.

Summary judgment

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which is a request to rule without a trial because the evidence shows no genuine dispute over facts important to the outcome. The court stated that the motions were granted in part and denied in part and that all claims were dismissed except Rivera’s Fourth Amendment seizure claim against Varbero.

Connecticut State Trooper Defendants

The court held that a reasonable jury could find both that the troopers’ warrantless entry was justified by an urgent potential domestic-violence situation and that the entry was not necessary under the circumstances. The court nevertheless granted the troopers qualified immunity on the entry claim. Qualified immunity protects government officials unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right and was objectively unreasonable. The court found that Rivera had not identified a case clearly establishing that the troopers’ conduct was unlawful in these particular circumstances, and that reasonable officers could disagree about whether the entry was lawful.

The court also granted summary judgment to the troopers on Rivera’s seizure claim. It concluded that waking Rivera, asking for identification, and the alleged physical contact during that process did not show that the troopers restrained Rivera’s freedom. The alleged threat was attributed to Varbero, not to the troopers.

New Fairfield Defendant

The court granted summary judgment to Officer Koonitsky. It found that Koonitsky reasonably relied on the information provided by the dispatcher and the troopers when he entered the home. His presence while the troopers questioned Rivera was not enough to establish a Fourth Amendment seizure, particularly because Rivera did not allege that Koonitsky touched him or used force.

Deputy Varbero

The court granted summary judgment to Varbero on Rivera’s entry claim. It found no evidence that Varbero knew the troopers’ entry was unlawful when he entered through the open door.

The court also granted summary judgment to Varbero on the bedroom-search claim based on qualified immunity. The court assumed, without deciding, that Varbero’s brief inspection of the master bedroom could have lacked the reasonable suspicion required for a protective sweep, a limited search for a person who may pose a danger. But the court held that Varbero’s conduct was objectively reasonable and that the limits of an officer’s reliance on other officers when taking control of an incident were not clearly established.

The court denied summary judgment to Varbero on the seizure claim. It concluded that a reasonable person could have believed he was not free to leave after Varbero allegedly threatened that he would “end up in the hospital” if he was not quiet. The court classified the alleged detention as an investigative stop rather than an arrest because it lasted only five to seven minutes, occurred in the living room, and did not involve handcuffs or a displayed weapon. An investigative stop requires reasonable suspicion. The court found that a reasonable jury could decide Varbero lacked reasonable suspicion because he had already learned from the other officers, Rivera’s daughter, and her mother that there was no active domestic-violence situation. The claim therefore could proceed to trial.

State-law claims and disposition

After dismissing the federal claims in case number 22 CV 1874, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over Rivera’s trespass and false-imprisonment claims against the Town. The conclusion states that all claims were dismissed except Rivera’s Fourth Amendment seizure claim against Varbero. The court directed the clerk to close case number 22 CV 1874 and scheduled a case-management conference in case number 22 CV 1877.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti granted the motions for summary judgment in part and denied them in part.