135 Conn. App. 65
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Reddy appeals an order under CT § 29-38c seizing his firearms for one year after a risk warrant hearing.
- The Weston police obtained a risk warrant alleging Reddy posed a risk of imminent harm based on a coworker’s report of threatening statements and weapon display.
- The warrant was executed; police seized a pistol grip shotgun, revolver, ammunition, a fuse, and two nonfunctioning grenades.
- A § 29-38c(d) hearing occurred within the statutory framework; the court found by clear and convincing evidence that Reddy posed an imminent risk and ordered firearms held for one year.
- Reddy moved to open/set aside the judgment; the hearing and related order later became the subject of this appeal; court held the order validly challenged and reversed the judgment.
- Reddy argues the fourteen-day hearing requirement is mandatory but waivable, and that the appeal remains viable under collateral consequences despite mootness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 29-38c(d)14-day hearing is mandatory or directory | Reddy contends the period is directory for convenience. | State argues the period is mandatory but waivable. | Mandatory but waivable; court adopts waiver possibility. |
| Whether § 29-38c(d) hearing is subject to waiver | Reddy asserts no waiver occurred or should be inferred. | State contends waiver may be found from circumstances. | Waiver not inferred; waiver not established as a matter of law. |
| Whether collateral consequences permit appellate review despite mootness | Collateral consequences prevent mootness from barring review. | Collateral consequences exist but do not obviate mootness. | Collateral consequences doctrine sustains jurisdiction; merits review proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Addie May Nesbitt, 124 Conn.App. 400 (Conn. App. 2010) (collateral consequences doctrine permits review after seizure order expires)
- Reveron v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, 123 Conn.App. 475 (Conn. App. 2010) (collateral consequences; mootness framework in firearms cases)
- State v. Miscellaneous Fireworks, 132 Conn.App. 679 (Conn. App. 2011) (mandatory vs. directory time limitations; statutory interpretation guidance)
- Wiseman v. Armstrong, 295 Conn. 94 (Conn. 2010) (shall as mandatory duty when paired with substantive action)
- Lostritto v. Community Action Agency of New Haven, Inc., 269 Conn. 10 (Conn. 2004) (interpretation of mandatory vs. directory; waiver considerations)
- Stewart v. Watertown, 303 Conn. 699 (Conn. 2012) (statutory interpretation; timing provisions)
- Pedro v. Miller, 281 Conn. 112 (Conn. 2007) (mandatory time limitations may be excused for equitable reasons)
- State v. Tabone, 292 Conn. 417 (Conn. 2009) (analysis of mandatory language and consequences)