Lamar v. Brevetti
163 A.3d 627
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On July 31, 2008, Officer Francis Brevetti responded to a disturbance, arrested Solomon Lamar for breach of the peace, and during the arrest officers observed crack cocaine and paraphernalia in plain view; Lamar was charged with breach of peace and narcotics offenses.
- A Superior Court found Lamar violated a conditional discharge due to the new arrest and sentenced him to 3.5 years; Brevetti was later arrested and pleaded guilty to tampering with evidence and possession of a controlled substance.
- The state ultimately declined to prosecute the July 31, 2008 charges; Lamar was released March 26, 2010 and sued the city of Waterbury and six officers asserting 24 counts (negligence, recklessness, false arrest, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, emotional distress, civil rights violations, and municipal liability).
- Defendants removed the case to federal court; the District Court granted summary judgment to defendants on federal civil-rights and related state claims, finding probable cause for the arrest, and remanded remaining state claims to Superior Court.
- In Superior Court the defendants moved for summary judgment on the remaining state-law claims; the court granted summary judgment for all defendants and Lamar appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual defendants liable for negligence (and whether governmental immunity applies) | Lamar argued officers acted negligently in effecting arrest and in related conduct | Defendants argued their actions were discretionary police acts protected by governmental immunity and no exception (imminent harm) applies | Court: Acts were discretionary; governmental immunity barred negligence claims; no imminent-harm exception shown |
| Whether intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Brevetti survive given probable cause | Lamar challenged emotional distress claims despite probable cause | Defendants argued probable cause for arrest is an absolute bar to these tort claims | Court: Lamar conceded Brooks principle; probable cause existed; emotional distress claims barred |
| Whether city liable directly or vicariously under municipal liability / indemnification theories (including statutes invoked) | Lamar sought municipal liability/indemnification for officers’ conduct | Defendants argued city’s liability is derivative of officers’ claims and fails if officers prevail | Court: Because individual defendants were entitled to judgment, city’s derivative claims also fail |
| Whether recklessness counts raise triable issues | Lamar argued recklessness claims remained | Defendants argued summary judgment appropriate; plaintiff failed to adequately brief challenge | Court: Plaintiff inadequately briefed recklessness claims; appellate court declined to consider them |
Key Cases Cited
- Smart v. Corbitt, 126 Conn. App. 788 (Conn. App. 2011) (police functions generally discretionary for immunity analysis)
- Haynes v. Middletown, 314 Conn. 303 (Conn. 2014) (governmental immunity framework and exceptions)
- Coley v. Hartford, 312 Conn. 150 (Conn. 2014) (discussing governmental immunity and discretionary acts)
- Brooks v. Sweeney, 299 Conn. 196 (Conn. 2010) (existence of probable cause defeats malicious prosecution and emotional distress tort claims)