198 Conn.App. 170
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Plaintiff: town first selectman’s executive assistant; Defendant: town resident who repeatedly visited town hall in 2018.
- Two relevant encounters in 2018: a summer incident where defendant allegedly videotaped/surveilled the plaintiff and put a camera within a foot of her face; December 26 incident where defendant yelled, used profanity, pointed at plaintiff, plaintiff hit a panic button, and police arrested defendant for breach of the peace.
- Plaintiff filed an application under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-16a alleging stalking and that defendant caused her to fear for her safety; hearing held Jan. 7, 2019.
- Trial court found § 46b-16a satisfied and issued a one-year civil protection order (firearm surrender, no threatening/harassing/stalking conduct, stay-away from home, and appointment/escort requirement at town hall).
- Defendant (self-represented) appealed, arguing: exclusion of audio/video evidence; that issuance was improper because arrest was for breach of the peace (not an offense listed in § 54-1k); videotaping was lawful and not stalking; First Amendment/access-to-records violation; and improper ex parte communications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of audio/video evidence | Plaintiff relied on trial discretion to exclude irrelevant recordings and that credibility/evidence presented sufficed | Recordings impeached witnesses and were relevant to credibility and context | Court did not abuse discretion; recordings were not relevant to whether defendant’s conduct reasonably caused fear and defendant failed to preserve/foundation for their admission |
| Applicability of § 54‑1k arrest requirement | Protection order was sought under § 46b‑16a, which has no § 54‑1k arrest prerequisite | Order improper because defendant’s arrest was for breach of the peace, not an offense enumerated in § 54‑1k | Rejected: § 46b‑16a governs civil protection orders and does not require prior arrest under § 54‑1k |
| Videotaping = stalking / sufficiency of evidence | Plaintiff showed two or more willful acts (surveilling/monitoring) that reasonably caused fear | Defendant claimed lawful right to record public employees, so videotaping cannot be stalking | Affirmed: civil stalking under § 46b‑16a is broader than criminal stalking; plaintiff’s testimony about aggressive surveilling + December threats supported order |
| First Amendment / access to public records claim | Plaintiff: defendant’s briefing inadequate; court’s order targeted threatening conduct not protected speech | Defendant: actions were protected speech/recording of public officials and access-to-records activity | Not reviewed: appellate briefing inadequate to define/apply First Amendment standards |
| Ex parte communications / due process | Plaintiff denies illicit ex parte contacts; court remarks were innocuous on the record | Defendant asserts judge engaged in off-record contact with plaintiff based on judge’s on-the-record comment | Not reviewed: claim unpreserved and record inadequate to show any ex parte communication or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Kayla M. v. Greene, 163 Conn. App. 493 (Conn. App. 2016) (standard of review for civil protection orders; discretionary abuse/clearly erroneous rules)
- Perez v. Minore, 147 Conn. App. 704 (Conn. App. 2014) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed only for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Buhl, 321 Conn. 688 (Conn. 2016) (importance of adequate briefing for First Amendment claims)
- Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) (First Amendment protects recording public officials engaged in duties)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (test for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 292 Conn. 150 (Conn. 2009) (harmless error framework for improperly excluded evidence)