Blog
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
Any hit-and-run accident can be devastating. When a driver who causes a crash flees the scene, it can be particularly difficult to find them so that they can be held accountable for their actions. Sometimes, however, finding the driver is only part of the story, as there may be other parties who contributed to causing the accident, possibly including officers of the law. In fact, the Connecticut Supreme Court recently took up a case in which an injured victim claims that a municipal police officer failed in his duties, which subsequently allowed a serious hit-and-run accident to occur.
A Complicated Story
As with most cases that reach the Supreme Court, the case in question involves a complex chain of events, beginning with a domestic disturbance call in November 2006. According to court documents, an East Haven police officer responded to the call at an East Haven McDonald’s where a couple was arguing inside a work van. The license plates on the van were registered to a different vehicle, and the officer could not confirm a valid driver’s license for either of the van’s occupants. After settling the couple down, the officer took the driver home and instructed him to leave the van at the McDonald’s.
According to the National Institute on Drug abuse, 115 individuals die in the United States every day as the result of an opioid overdose. The issue has become serious enough in recent years to earn its description as a national epidemic crisis. Not all opioids are illegal, and in fact, many cases of abuse begin with a legal prescription for pain relievers like OxyContin. Patients can quickly become addicted and when the legal supply dries up, they often turn to illegal substitutes like heroin.
Lawmakers around the country have been looking for constructive ways to deal with the opioid crisis. One idea involves the creation of “opioid courts” which are intended to help those who have been arrested for non-violent drug crimes related to opioids. Several such courts have been established around the country, and some Connecticut legislators want to look into creating one in this state.
A Proposed Study
While unseasonably cool temperatures and winter-type weather may still affect Connecticut residents for a few more weeks, spring is on its way. As the temperatures start to come up, increased numbers of individuals and families will begin spending time outside. For motorcycle owners and enthusiasts in the Northeast, spring also marks the beginning of a new riding season. Rider safety groups and government safety officials in Connecticut and around the country encourage riders to protect themselves and to help keep roadways safe for other drivers. Every driver, pedestrian, and motorcycle rider has a responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent motorcycle accidents and the injuries they cause.
Each year, thousands of motorcycle riders are killed on American roadways, and many thousands more are injured. The tragic reality is that a large number of these injuries and deaths could be prevented if riders follow a few simple safety guidelines:
Over the last few years, there has been much debate regarding efforts in Connecticut to rethink how young adults should be treated in the realm of criminal law. Courts have long held that a person who is 18 years old or older should be fully responsible for his or her actions. Defendants under the age of 18 are typically granted considerations based on the idea that a minor’s brain is not yet fully developed.
In Connecticut, specifically, Governor Dannel P. Malloy has championed the idea of creating a separate court system for young adults up to age 23. Such a system would take able to take into account a defendant’s development and other factors when determining sentencing and the prospect of rehabilitation. Late last month, a ruling by a federal judge in Connecticut gave additional credibility to the concept of a young adult justice system by ordering a new sentencing hearing for a man convicted of committing murder at the age of 18.
Large trampolines can be found in the backyards of thousands of homes across the country—primarily in suburban areas. Straddling the line between sports equipment and toys, trampolines promise bouncy fun for children and adults alike, but they are not without their risks. In fact, a study from several years ago estimated that backyard trampoline accidents send more than 100,000 people to the emergency room every year.
Over the last few years, trampolines have headed inside, as indoor trampoline parks have become wildly popular. Franchise chains such as Launch, Sky Zone, Big Air, and Rebounderz have opened hundreds of locations nationwide and around the world. As their popularity grows, however, so does the danger of injury, and medical experts indicate that the number of trampoline park injuries has exploded by more than 1,000 percent in just a few short years.
A former Connecticut police officer was sitting at home minding his own business when five state troopers arrived with a warrant to seize all of his legally-owned firearms. The 76-year-old man had committed no crime, had no history of violence, was not under arrest, and was not being charged, but the state police still seized more than 80 guns from the man’s home pursuant to a Firearm Safety Warrant. Connecticut is one of just five states to allow this type of controversial warrant, though many more are considering them in light of recent tragedies involving gun violence.
Firearm Safety Warrants
In 1999, the Connecticut Legislature passed what lawmakers called “risk warrant” legislation. The law allows courts to issue firearm seizure warrants based on reports from the general public that a person (gun owner) poses an immediate threat of personal injury to themselves or others. The subject of such a warrant does not need to have broken any laws in order for the seizure to be conducted. The police can hold seized firearms for up to two weeks while a hearing is scheduled. At the hearing, a judge then determines the status of the guns. Some are returned to the owner immediately, others are held for up to one year, and a small number are forfeited and sold or destroyed.
Almost all of us have been affected by drunk driving in some way or another. Some of those reading have gotten into fender benders with someone they suspect was drinking. Others have been seriously injured in car accidents caused by an impaired driver. Still others have friends or family members who have been killed or injured in a car accident involving alcohol. Incidents involving an alcohol-impaired driver cause approximately 10,000 deaths in the U.S each year. Lawmakers have responded to the problem of drunk drivers by imposing serious criminal penalties for those who drive with a blood alcohol content (BAC) over the legal limit. Now, that BAC threshold which determines if someone is breaking the law or not may be lowered.
Blood Alcohol Content Threshold
A prestigious panel of the National Academics of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine is recommending that states lower the legal limit which determines is someone is charged with driving under the influence (DUI). As it currently stands, all states have a BAC limit of 0.08 percent, although Utah has passed a law which will lower the legal limit beginning December 30. The 489-page report suggests that changing the BAC threshold from 0.08 percent to 0.05 percent would ultimately result in fewer deaths and injuries caused by drunk drivers. A person’s blood alcohol content is determined by several factors, not just how much alcohol they have had to drink. So, this proposed measure would affect drinkers in different ways. For example, a 150-pound man might require two drinks to reach 0.05 percent BAC while it may take a physically smaller person only one drink to reach a BAC of 0.05 percent.
When the police respond to a report of a domestic disturbance, how they handle the situation is determined by a number of factors. Of course, the behavior of and allegations made by the parties involved will contribute to the officer’s decision on whether or not to make an arrest. The applicable laws of the state in question also matter and can vary widely from one state to the next.
In Connecticut, an officer is essentially required to make an arrest when responding to a domestic violence call if he or she has probable cause to believe that violent incident took place. Unfortunately, however, the wording of the law—which went into effect in 1987—has had the unintended consequence of raising the rate of dual arrests to more than double the national average. In recent weeks, victims’ advocate groups have renewed calls to amend the state’s laws so that victims will no longer need to fear being arrested when they call the police for help.
When you enter into or onto another person’s property, the owner of the property is responsible for making sure that you are safe. This does not mean that the property owner is necessarily tasked with protecting you from yourself, but it does mean that the premises must be kept free of hazards that could lead to a slip and fall or a trip and fall. If the owner fails to keep the property safe and you are injured as a result, you may be able to collect compensation under the principles of premises liability.
Recovering damages after a slip and fall injury will require you—with the help your attorney—to prove four basic elements:
A Duty of Care
The first thing you must prove is that the person or entity from whom you are seeking compensation actually owed you a duty of care. In other words, you must show that the defendant is the owner of the property in question or is otherwise responsible for the condition of the premises. The duty of care owed by a property owner may also depend on your reasons for being on the property. For example, if you were injured in a store during normal business hours, the duty of care owed to you would be greater than if you had broken in late at night.
At the moment, there is just one prison in the entire state of Connecticut for juveniles who commit crimes that are not serious enough for the “adult” court system. That prison, however, is in the process of closing, leaving many wondering what will happen to the juveniles currently being held there and those who commit such offenses in the future.
Secure Facility
The Connecticut Juvenile Training School in Middletown is a high-security correctional facility designed to hold the most troubled boys in the state’s juvenile justice system. The juvenile delinquents committed to the center have not necessarily committed the worst crimes—those offenders are typically transferred to a standard or adult criminal court and prison system, as necessary. Instead, the boys are essentially the most in need of careful supervision, as many are dealing the effects of physical trauma, mental illness, drug abuse, and dysfunctional families.
50 Founders Plaza
