by Thomas Breen | Oct 21, 2019 11:36 am

(20) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Legal Writes, Newhallville

State police have arrested Hamden Police Officer Devin Eaton on one felony charge and two misdemeanor charges related to his shooting and injuring of an unarmed couple in Newhallville in April.

The state Division of Criminal Justice made that announcement Tuesday morning in two press releases regarding Eaton’s arrest and State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin’s investigation into the April 16 shooting.

The releases represent the culmination of a months-long investigation by Griffin’s office into the officer-involved shooting, in which Eaton and Yale Police Department Officer Terrance Pollock fired a total of 16 bullets at the couple, Paul Witherspoon and Stephanie Washington, in the early hours of April 16 on Argyle Street near Dixwell Avenue.

Eaton, 29, who fired 13 of those shots, including the ones that struck and injured Washington and sent her to the hospital, has been charged with one felony count of first-degree assault and two misdemeanor accounts of first-degree reckless endangerment. He has been released on $100,000 bond and is scheduled to appear in New Haven Superior Court on Oct. 28.

Pollock, who fired three of those shots, all in response to Eaton’s initial blasts and none of which injured anyone involved, has not been arrested or charged.

“Even if an argument can be made that the initial shot fired at Witherspoon was reasonable because Officer Eaton believed that Witherspoon held something in his hand,” Griffin wrote in his recommendation that Eaton be arrested, “it was not objectively reasonable for Officer Eaton to continue to move around the red Honda Civic while firing his weapon into the passenger compartment - particularly in light of the fact that, by his own admission, Officer Eaton was aware of Washington’s presence.”

“Under circumstances evincing an extreme indifference to human life,” Griffin continued, “he recklessly engaged in conduct which created a risk of death, and thereby caused serious physical injury to Washington. Additionally, the reckless manner in which the shots were discharged placed those in the immediate vicinity, including Paul Witherspoon and Officer Pollock, at risk for serious physical injury.”

In fact, Griffin’s report revealed, Pollock was struck by one of Eaton’s shots. The Yale officer, who started firing only after Eaton had unleashed eight bullets at Witherspoon and Washington’s car, suffered a “non-life threatening gunshot ‘graze’ wound to his right calf” due to the “friendly fire” and was subsequently transported to Yale New Haven Hospital for treatment.

Washington suffered “multiple injuries,” according to Griffin, including one gunshot wound to the left upper thigh that fractured her pelvis and spine “with bullet fragments exiting her right flank through two exit wounds” as well as an abrasion to her forehead after falling on the pavement as she exited the vehicle.

“It was like being in a nightmare,” she told investigators. “I thought I was going to die.”

Investigators also confirmed that a gas station attendant at the Go On Gas / White Stone Mini-Mart in Hamden initially called 911 that morning with a report of an attempted armed robbery of a newspaper deliveryman.

Investigators subsequently confirmed that neither Witherspoon nor Washington had any firearms on them.

“At the time of the shooting,” Griffin wrote, “neither Witherspoon nor Washington were in possession of a firearm.”

Click here, here, here, here, and here for background on this shooting and the large public protests that took place in its wake.

Click here to read the full press release about the arrest. Click here or see below for Griffin’s report.

Report of the State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of New Haven Concerning an Officer-Involved Use of Deadly Physical Force in New Haven on April 16, 2019

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Incident Overview

On April 16, 2019 at approximately 4:32 a.m., Hamden Police Officer (HPD) Devin Eaton and Yale University Police Officer (YPD) Terrance Pollock were involved in a non-fatal shooting incident in the City of New Haven, in the area of Argyle Street at Dixwell Avenue, during which Stephanie Washington was shot and seriously wounded. The officers encountered Washington and Paul Witherspoon, the driver of the car in which she was a passenger, during the investigation of a 911 call of a reported armed robbery at the Go On Gas/White Stone Mini-Mart (gas station) located at 144 Arch Street in Hamden.

Washington was subsequently transported from the scene via ambulance to Yale New Haven Hospital for serious but non-life threatening injuries. Witherspoon did not sustain any injuries and was transported to the HPD to be interviewed. At the time of the shooting, neither Witherspoon nor Washington were in possession of a firearm.

Officer Pollock sustained a non-life threatening gunshot “graze” wound to his right calf, subsequently determined to be the result of friendly fire. He was transported to Yale New Haven Hospital by YPD personnel where he was treated and released on the same day.

B. Initial Investigative Response

New Haven, Yale University, and Hamden Police officers responded to and secured the shooting scene. In accordance with existing New Haven State’s Attorney’s Office protocol related to officer involved shootings, State’s Attorney Patrick J. Griffin was promptly notified of the incident. Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §51-277a[1] and Division of Criminal Justice policy, State’s Attorney Griffin thereafter notified Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane that the Connecticut State Police Central District Major Crime Squad (CDMCS) had been requested to process the scene and conduct the investigation. State’s Attorney Griffin further reported that Stephanie Washington was hospitalized with multiple gunshot wounds. Due to Stephanie Washington’s expected recovery from her injuries, Chief State’s Attorney Kane directed State’s Attorney Griffin to retain jurisdiction to supervise the investigation and any possible prosecution arising therefrom. See Connecticut General Statutes §51-277a(b) (rev. to 2019) (on date of incident statute required Chief State’s Attorney to designate a State’s Attorney from another Judicial District to conduct the investigation only in the event of a death); see also footnote 1, supra.

Per protocol, State’s Attorney Griffin, along with inspectors and prosecutors from the New Haven State’s Attorney’s Office, arrived on scene at approximately 6:30 a.m. and remained until approximately 3:30 p.m. to coordinate investigative resources.

C. Materials Reviewed

On July 24, 2019, the CDMCS provided the New Haven State’s Attorney’s Office with copies of investigative materials which included, inter alia, the initial report, primary digital photographs, secondary digital photographs, scene video, the vehicle survey report, the trajectory report, medical records, exterior building surveillance video, witness statements, forensic laboratory reports, body/vehicle camera reports, body camera footage, radio transmissions/911 call reports, HPD reports, YPD reports, and supplemental reports.

Subsequently, on September 12, 2019, the New Haven State’s Attorney’s Office obtained New Haven Police Department (NHPD) reports and body camera footage related to this incident. On September 26, 2019, the Connecticut State Forensic Laboratory provided the State’s Attorney’s Office with bench notes and copies of all reports to date relating to the examination of forensic evidence in this case. On September 27, 2019, the CDMCS provided the State’s Attorney’s Office with copies of additional statements. On October 8, 2019, the State’s Attorney’s Office received a supplemental report issued by the State Forensic Laboratory and additional supplemental reports from the CDMCS.

Based upon his independent review of all available investigative materials, New Haven State’s Attorney Patrick J. Griffin provides the following summary of the incident and determinations regarding the exercise of deadly physical force by Officers Eaton and Pollock.

II. INCIDENT SUMMARY

A. The 911 Call

On Tuesday, April 16, 2019, at approximately 4:20 a.m., HPD dispatch received an emergency 911 call from the clerk at the gas station located at 144 Arch Street in Hamden. The clerk reported that, outside of the gas station, an African American male customer with dreadlocks, driving a red car with license plate AK63322, and having a female passenger, pulled a gun on the person who delivers the newspapers, asking him for money. The clerk also said that the African American male was harassing a second customer. The clerk reiterated the suspect and vehicle information and provided the direction of travel when the suspect left the gas station.

B. The Radio Transmissions

In response to the 911 call, HPD Officers Devin Eaton and Keron Bryce were dispatched to a “Signal 27 at the Go On Gas 144 Arch Street, with possibly 128 used.” (Review of HPD Radio Signals indicates that a Signal 27 is a Street Robbery and a Signal 128 is Weapon Involved - Firearm). Dispatch provided officers with the vehicle description, registration plate, and suspect description. Dispatch also informed officers that there was a female in the vehicle. The suspect was initially reported to still be in the gas station parking lot, but shortly thereafter was reported as having fled in the direction of Dixwell Avenue.

At 4:23 a.m., Officer Bryce notified HPD dispatch that the reported license plate belonged to a 1999 red, two-door, Honda Civic registered in West Haven.

At 4:24 a.m., HPD dispatch notified NHPD via the “Hotline” (broadcasts via which can be heard by dispatchers in surrounding towns), that they “just had a street robbery happen in our town, was heading in your direction on Dixwell Avenue, with a gun used in a street robbery. . . .” HPD dispatch also correctly relayed the suspect description, vehicle description, and the fact that there was a female passenger in the car.

Thereafter, NHPD dispatch notified their officers, via radio (which can also be heard by YPD officers if they are monitoring the NHPD channel), of the Hamden street robbery with a gun. They further provided their officers with the descriptive information. The only incorrect information broadcast to NHPD officers was the license plate number, which the dispatcher reported as AK63233 (the correct license plate was AK63322).

At approximately 4:27 a.m., YPD dispatch notified their officers, via radio, of the information broadcasted by NHPD dispatch.

At approximately 4:32 a.m., Officer Eaton notified HPD dispatch of shots fired on Argyle Street. [2]

C. The Red Honda Civic and its Occupants

Paul Witherspoon was subsequently identified by the gas station clerk to be the subject of the clerk’s earlier 911 call and the driver of the red Honda Civic. [3] It was determined that, after leaving the gas station, Witherspoon traveled to Argyle Street in New Haven with Stephanie Washington as his front-seat passenger. It was while on Argyle Street that the occupants of the red Honda Civic encountered Officers Eaton and Pollock.

D. Available Exterior Building Surveillance Video

CDMCS investigators interviewed all four individuals involved in the shooting on Argyle Street. See Section V., infra. Not unexpectedly, the observations and perceptions of these four witnesses diverge in several key aspects. Nonetheless, investigators in this matter were greatly aided in their investigation by available video evidence which serves to both corroborate and dispel certain reported observations of the witnesses.

1. Location of the cameras

The three level commercial building that houses the Believe-in-Me Empowerment Corporation (BIMEC) is located at 423 Dixwell Avenue, which is on the northeast corner of the intersection with Argyle Street. There are multiple exterior surveillance cameras mounted on the building on both the south and west sides, which provided multiple views of the shooting incident. CDMCS investigators seized and reviewed surveillance footage from BIMEC. Analysis has determined that the timestamp (running clock) which appears on the BIMEC surveillance footage is approximately three minutes behind the actual time and there is no audio. It was determined that footage from two of BIMEC’s cameras were significant to this investigation. One camera, labeled “side door,” captures Argyle Street near, and including, where it meets Dixwell Avenue. The other camera, labeled “front sidewalk,” captures Dixwell Avenue at the corner of Argyle Street.

2. Laboratory Enhancement and analysis of the videos

The BIMEC surveillance footage was sent to the Connecticut State Forensic Laboratory for enhancement. Because no single BIMEC video captured the actions of Officers Eaton and Pollock simultaneously, the two most relevant videos (“side door” and “front sidewalk”) were put on a single split screen video by the lab, allowing synchronized playback.

The videos show that Officer Pollock traveled in his marked YPD cruiser north on Dixwell Avenue in New Haven and stopped on the shoulder of Dixwell Avenue, slightly north of its intersection with Argyle Street, facing north. Officer Pollock then turned off all of his lights. Approximately one minute later, Officer Eaton, driving a marked HPD cruiser south on Dixwell Avenue, passed Officer Pollock and Argyle Street. At that time, the red Honda Civic was parked facing south in a driveway on Argyle Street.

A short distance after passing Argyle Street, Officer Eaton slowed and performed a U-turn. Simultaneously, Officer Pollock performed a U-turn and stopped in the southbound lane on Dixwell Avenue, at its intersection with Argyle Street. By this time, the Honda Civic had backed out of the driveway and started traveling slowly forward, westbound on Argyle Street, toward its intersection with Dixwell Avenue. Having completed his U-turn, Officer Eaton began to travel north on Dixwell Avenue and then turned right (east) onto Argyle Street. Officer Pollock began a left turn toward Argyle Street, with his cruiser now facing the red Honda Civic on Argyle Street. Officer Pollock came to a brief stop before continuing to move slowly forward and stopping.

Once on Argyle Street, Officer Eaton slowly passed the red Honda Civic and pulled toward the driver’s side rear of the vehicle. Officer Eaton stopped his cruiser and opened his door, exited, and drew his handgun. The driver’s door of the Honda opened, Witherspoon started to exit the vehicle and raise his hands. Officer Eaton, from a position near the rear quarter panel of the red Honda Civic, fired toward Witherspoon. Witherspoon retreated back into the vehicle. While still firing, Officer Eaton moved to the rear, and then to the passenger’s side, of the red Honda Civic.

Video confirms that Officer Pollock’s cruiser was struck by gunfire before he exited his cruiser.[4] In fact, an analysis of the split screen BIMEC video reflects that Officer Pollock did not exit his cruiser or begin firing his weapon until Officer Eaton had fired his weapon eight (8) times. By this time, Officer Eaton was on the passenger’s side of the red Honda Civic and still firing his weapon.

Officer Pollock exited his cruiser and fired one shot toward the red Honda Civic. At this time, Officer Pollock’s cruiser rolled forward, subsequently striking the front end of the red Honda Civic. Officer Pollock fired a second shot in the direction of the red Honda Civic as his cruiser rolled away. Officer Pollock then retreated across Dixwell Avenue as he fired his third and final shot in the direction of the red Honda Civic.

In total, Officer Eaton fired thirteen (13) shots in the direction of the red Honda Civic, the last two (2) of which he fired with his arm extended behind him as he fled on Argyle Street seeking cover.[5]

The two BIMEC videos showing Officers Eaton and Pollock (“side door” and “front sidewalk”) were analyzed by the Connecticut State Forensic Laboratory Multimedia and Image Enhancement Unit for timeline documentation of firearm discharge, based upon recoil, muzzle flash, and/or bullet damage. An interpretation of the report authored on May 31, 2019, reflects the following shot sequence:

Firearm Discharge

Shot Officer Frame

1 Eaton 1051

2 Eaton 1058

3 Eaton 1071

4 Eaton 1098

5 Eaton 1105

6 Eaton 1115

7 Eaton 1124

8 Eaton 1135

9 Pollock 1135

10 Eaton 1139

11 Eaton 1146

12 Pollock 1149

13 Eaton 1153

14 Eaton 1165

15 Eaton 1188

16 Pollock 1201

III. DESCRIPTION OF SCENE

Argyle Street connects, Dixwell Avenue to the west, with Shelton Avenue to the east. Argyle Street is a two-way roadway that travels east and west, with one lane of travel in each direction. There is a posted stop sign and white painted stop line for traffic traveling westbound on Argyle Street approaching Dixwell Avenue.

The following is a description of the scene as it appeared on the morning of April 16, 2019 after the shooting. The red Honda Civic, registered to Stephanie Washington, was facing west in the westbound lane of Argyle Street, just prior to the stop line at the intersection with Dixwell Avenue. There was no front license plate on the vehicle. Broken glass from the red Honda Civic’s driver and passenger windows was on the roadway next to the vehicle. Bullet strikes were identified on the windshield, driver’s side door, rear window, and passenger’s side door. There was damage to the front bumper that was consistent with contact made between the red Honda Civic and the YPD cruiser.

The YPD cruiser was identified as Officer Pollock’s vehicle. It was a marked white Ford Police Interceptor SUV, located in the center of Argyle Street facing east, slightly offset into the westbound lane, with its front driver’s side bumper resting against the front driver’s side bumper of the red Honda Civic. Bullet strikes were identified on the front driver’s side bumper and the rear window. There was damage to the front bumper that was consistent with contact made between it and the red Honda Civic.

The HPD cruiser was identified as Officer Eaton’s vehicle. It was a marked purple Ford Police Interceptor SUV, located in the eastbound lane of Argyle Street, positioned diagonally northeast along the driver’s side rear of the red Honda Civic. A search of the exterior revealed no evidence of bullet strikes.

On Argyle Street, approximately ninety (90) feet east of the intersection with Dixwell Avenue, was the driveway for 413-415 Dixwell Avenue, where the red Honda Civic backed out. Parked on the south curb just west of the driveway was an unoccupied green Honda Civic.

Parked on the northbound curb behind the red Honda Civic was an unoccupied white Mitsubishi Lancer, which had a bullet strike on the front registration plate. Parked directly behind the Mitsubishi was an unoccupied Volvo S60 with no evidence of bullet strikes. These two vehicles were used for cover and concealment by Officer Eaton during the incident, and were adjacent to the trash receptacles positioned on the north sidewalk.

This incident occurred in the early morning hours, before sunrise. CDMCS investigators identified various overhead light sources illuminating Dixwell Avenue and Argyle Street. A streetlight was located on the north side of Argyle Street in the vicinity of the driveway for 413-415 Dixwell Avenue. A second streetlight was located on the east side of Dixwell Avenue at the intersection of Argyle Street. A third streetlight was located on the north side of Argyle Street directly above the red Honda Civic. All three streetlights were illuminated. There were no streetlights on the south side of Argyle Street. Additionally, there were overhead light sources affixed to the south side of the BIMEC building, pointing down toward the sidewalk. These lights, one of which was in the immediate area of the red Honda Civic, were all illuminated. The headlights of Officer Eaton’s cruiser were on, however, in light of the position of the vehicle, they did not illuminate the red Honda Civic. Officer Pollock’s headlights were off. None of the interior lights of the red Honda Civic appeared to be on at the time of the incident.

IV. EVIDENCE COLLECTION

A. Processing of the Scene

On April 16, 2019 CDMCS investigators processed the scene on Argyle Street for evidence and seized the following items:

Three (3) Speer .40 caliber Smith & Wesson expended shell casings,which were located: in the area of the driver’s side door of Officer Pollock’s cruiser; behind Officer Pollock’s cruiser on Dixwell Avenue; and on Dixwell Avenue, southwest of Officer Pollock’s cruiser;

Thirteen (13) Winchester .40 caliber Smith & Wesson expended shell casings, which were located: on the north sidewalk of Argyle Street; adjacent to Officer Pollock’s cruiser; on the north side of Argyle Street, adjacent to the red Honda Civic; on the north sidewalk of Argyle Street, adjacent to the white Mitsubishi Lancer; and near the trash receptacles;

Two bullet projectiles from Officer Pollock’s cruiser - one from the rear interior roof and one from the engine compartment;

One bullet fragment from Dixwell Avenue near a manhole cover, west of Officer Pollock’s cruiser;

One Apple iPhone, with a cracked screen and an ID / credit card sleeve attached to the back, located on the pavement behind the rear driver’s side tire of the red Honda Civic;[6]

One projectile from the engine compartment of the Mitsubishi Lancer;

Video surveillance from Believe-In-Me Empowerment Corporation (BIMEC);

Police officer body camera footage;

Watch Guard DVR 2-035607 hard drive from Officer Pollock’s YPD cruiser;

The red Honda Civic; and

Both officers’ department issued Glock 22, .40 caliber semi-automatic handguns for forensic analysis (it was determined that Officer Eaton was carrying .40 caliber Smith & Wesson/Winchester ammunition and Officer Pollock was carrying .40 caliber Smith & Wesson/Speer ammunition).

Other than those belonging to the officers, CDMCS investigators did not locate any additional firearms at the scene. They specifically reported that no firearm was visible in plain view inside the red Honda Civic. The car was towed from the scene in anticipation of further investigatory processing.

B. Processing of the Red Honda Civic

Starting on April 22, 2019 and finishing on April 23, 2019, CDMCS investigators processed the red Honda Civic for evidence. The search was authorized by a court ordered search and seizure warrant and conducted inside the secured garage at the Connecticut State Police Troop I barracks. A search of the interior of the vehicle included the following areas: under the emergency brake plastic housing, the engine compartment, the glove box, the gas tank fill door, the fender/wheel wells, and underneath the trunk liner. The seats, door panels, and carpeting were all removed to inspect behind and under them. Investigators seized various items of evidence from the vehicle including four (4) bullet projectiles and four (4) bullet fragments. Investigators did not locate any firearms. The detached manual window crank lever from the driver’s side door was located in the glove box.

V. WITNESS STATEMENTS

To date, the following witnesses provided statements to CDMCS investigators regarding their direct observations of the shooting on Argyle Street: YPD Officer Terrance Pollock, HPD Officer Devin Eaton, Paul Witherspoon, and Stephanie Washington.[7] During the course of a neighborhood canvass, no additional witnesses to the shooting were identified.

A. Yale University Police Officer Terrance Pollock

On April 24, 2019, in the presence of his attorney, YPD Officer Terrance Pollock provided CDMCS investigators with a sworn, written, and signed statement. See Appendix A. Officer Pollock indicated that he received the dispatch regarding the red Honda Civic, which was reported to be involved in an “armed robbery” in Hamden. He described his actions in relevant part as follows:

“. . . As I noticed the Hamden cruiser pull up alongside the red car, I remember thinking it now made sense to me why the Hamden cruiser passed me on Dixwell Avenue and made the abrupt U-turn. I remember thinking to myself that the Hamden officer must have seen the red Honda Civic on Argyle Street, as he passed on Dixwell Avenue. I did not notice the red Honda Civic on Argyle Street while I was previously parked on Dixwell Avenue.

The next thing I noticed was the Hamden cruiser came to a complete stop, at a slight angle to my left, in a northeastern direction, alongside the red car. Immediately I noticed the Hamden officer jump out of the driver’s side of his cruiser and began approaching the driver’s door of the red car. I did not hear the Hamden officer say anything because I was still seated inside my cruiser and the windows were closed.

I then noticed the operator of the red car opened the driver’s door and appeared to be getting out of the red car. As this was happening, I saw the Hamden officer stopped moving forward toward the driver’s door, and then quickly jump back away from the red car and quickly to his right (toward the passenger-side of the vehicle). At that moment, I heard a series of gunshots and believed that the Hamden officer and the suspect were exchanging gunfire.

As I was seated in my cruiser, I heard what I thought were bullets striking the front of my cruiser. Seeing how the Hamden officer reacted, hearing the shots being fired, and believing the suspect was firing into my cruiser, I immediately thought that both the Hamden officer and I were being shot at by the operator of the red car. I was in fear for my life and thought I could be killed. I remember thinking I needed to get out of my cruiser immediately to return fire to defend myself and get myself into a safer location.

Fearing for my life, I immediately opened the driver’s door of my cruiser using my left hand, exited my cruiser, and drew my issued department duty weapon (a black Glock 22, .40 Caliber) with my right hand. I immediately discharged my duty weapon to eliminate the imminent threat of deadly force against the Hamden officer and me. I discharged my firearm in the direction of the operator of the red Honda Civic. To the best of my recollection, I believe I fired two times. As I was shooting, my cruiser began moving toward the red vehicle. I was in such fear for my safety and realized I needed to get out of my cruiser so quickly that I forgot to place my cruiser in park before I exited.

As I continued to back up and retreat from the gunfire, I could hear additional gunshots coming from the general area of the Honda Civic. Because my cruiser was slowly moving forward, I immediately began retreating and discharged my duty weapon a third time in the direction of the operator. I then crossed Dixwell Avenue in order to gain cover from the additional gunfire. As I retreated, I continued to hear gunfire coming from the area of the red car. . .”

B. Hamden Police Officer Devin Eaton

On May 8, 2019, in the presence of his attorney, HPD Officer Devin Eaton provided CDMCS investigators with a sworn, written, and signed statement. See Appendix B. Officer Eaton indicated that he was dispatched to the gas station for a report of a street robbery with a firearm. He described his actions in relevant part as follows:

“. . . As I turned right onto Argyle Street I saw the vehicle traveling very slowly on Argyle Street towards Dixwell Avenue. As I was traveling past the vehicle, I saw that it was being operated by a black male with dreadlocks and that there was a black female sitting in the front passenger seat. I could also see that the vehicle was a red colored Honda Civic, but at this point I was not certain this was the vehicle involved in the robbery because I could not see the vehicle’s registration. I did not want to notify dispatch until I knew that I had the correct vehicle.

I did not have my patrol vehicle’s overhead emergency lights or siren activated but the vehicle appeared to come to a stop as I was traveling past it. I don’t know why the vehicle came to a stop, but I thought that the operator was either going to engage me in pursuit, get out and try to run, or get out and shoot me. I stopped my patrol vehicle in the area of the rear of the red Honda to verify that the Honda’s registration matched the registration that was given to me by dispatch. Now that I realized this was the vehicle from the robbery, I felt I needed to immediately get out of my car to maintain a visual on the operator, to control the situation and to ensure he wasn’t going to shoot me. At this time the driver’s door of my patrol vehicle was approximately 10 to 12 feet away from the driver’s side door of the Honda.

I opened my driver’s side door. Based on the fact that the operator was reported to be in possession of a firearm, I unholstered my service weapon and exited my patrol vehicle. After I exited the vehicle with my service weapon pointed in the direction of the operator, I ordered him to show me his hands.

I couldn’t tell whether the window of the Honda was open or closed but I thought the operator would put his hands either up or through the window. It was my intention to get closer to the Honda’s driver’s side door so that I could more clearly see into the vehicle and see if the operator was holding a weapon.

Immediately after I exited my patrol vehicle and ordered the operator to show me his hands, I saw the driver’s door of the Honda unexpectedly swing open. The operator then began to suddenly exit the vehicle. As he was doing so, I could see that he was not holding anything in his left hand but as he began to turn towards me, I saw the operator begin to raise his right arm up and it appeared that he was holding an object in his right hand, which I believed to be a gun.

I was alone, had not yet radioed for back-up, believed that the operator was in possession of a firearm and based on his close proximity to me and his sudden and aggressive actions when exiting his vehicle, I was afraid that the operator was about to shoot me and cause me serious bodily injury or death. I then discharged my duty weapon and began to move towards the rear of the Honda for cover. I saw the operator dive back into the driver side of the car, and I heard the sound of gunshots as I was moving around to the rear of the Honda and perceived the gunshots to be coming from the operator. When I got to the passenger side of the vehicle I discharged my duty weapon at the robbery suspect again. I could not see the passenger. I then lost sight of the operator, so I stopped firing and moved to a position of cover and concealment on Argyle Street away from the Honda. I do not recall specifically how many times I discharged my duty weapon, however, all of the shots were fired within several seconds.

Once I was in a secure location, I notified dispatch of my location, that shots had been fired and that it involved the vehicle from the robbery. This was the first time that I saw another police vehicle that appeared to be stopped in front of the Honda. I could not identify which department the vehicle was associated with but I recall seeing a uniformed police officer running across Dixwell Avenue away from the police vehicle. Believing I was in the other officer’s line of fire in the event that he did fire, and so I could get a better view of the scene, I moved to another location behind a parked vehicle on Argyle Street and waited for back-up officers to arrive . . .”

C. Paul Witherspoon (driver)

On April 16, 2019, Paul Witherspoon provided CDMCS investigators with an audio visual statement (see footnote 7, supra.), which is summarized as follows:

Witherspoon related that he backed out of a driveway and began driving on Argyle Street toward Dixwell Avenue when he observed two police cars coming toward him from Dixwell Avenue. He knew something was going to happen because one of the police cars did not have its headlights on; he never tried to run and just stopped his car.

One of the police vehicles, with its strobe lights on, pulled alongside and to the rear of the driver’s side of the red Honda Civic. The other police vehicle struck the front of his vehicle and stopped directly in front of his car. He did not know what was happening or why he was being stopped. The incident at the gas station, which he characterized as a dispute, did not even cross his mind because the stuff that he described happens every day. The police officer who was driving the vehicle that stopped alongside the driver’s side of the red Honda Civic got out of his vehicle and ordered him to get out of his car. The officer told him to let him see his hands.

That because his window does not open, he pushed open the door with his left arm and then reached out the door with both arms and hands extended. He then swung both legs out of the door and attempted to stand up to get out of the car. He never reached for anything nor did he have anything in his hands.

Witherspoon stated that he has watched many movies in his life, and knew that if he even “scratched [his] dick” he would have been shot so he kept his hands extended out. As he was getting out of the car, he looked to his rear and saw the police officer standing there and the barrel of his gun was pointed straight at him. The police officer then opened fire at him. He then jumped back into his car, by leaning backwards onto the emergency parking brake. His legs were still hanging out of the corner of the door. He stated that he tried to put his arms around Stephanie to keep her safe. There were bullets coming into his car from the rear of his car and from the front of his car. The police officer was also shooting at them from the passenger’s side of his Honda Civic.

Witherspoon inquired as to why the officer was shooting at him from the passenger’s side of his vehicle. He stated he never did anything to provoke the police to shoot at him. He was following the orders from the police officer. Stephanie never did anything to provoke the shooting either. He has no idea how many bullets the police officers fired at him but it was a lot. He does not know how he and Stephanie survived the shooting.

D. Stephanie Washington (passenger)

On May 9, 2019, in the presence of her attorney, Stephanie Washington provided CDMCS investigators with a sworn, written, and signed statement. See Appendix C. Washington indicated that she and Witherspoon traveled from the gas station to Argyle Street in New Haven. She described her recollection of the shooting incident in relevant part as follows:

“. . . We pulled onto Argyle Street toward Dixwell, and as we were driving, I saw a white police car pull up in front of us with no lights on. Paul stopped the car and I watched the purple police car pass the white car, then pass my car, and stop behind my car. I know the purple car is a Hamden Police car because of the color.

I could see the police officer get out of the Hamden car and was in the street before Paul opened his door. I was still playing music through the car at the time but we could hear each other talk. When Paul opened his door and put his hands up, the officer pulled out his pistol and started shooting with no hesitation. When the police officer started firing, Paul ducked back into the car. He landed low in the seat so that his back was down near the crack where the seat and back portion of the driver seat meet.

Paul was not responsive because I was saying stuff to him and touching him, but he wasn’t responding. I thought that he might have been shot and was dead. I was trying to take cover from the gunshots, so I was leaning in between the driver and passenger seats, towards the back seat. It was like being in a nightmare. I thought I was going to die.

As the gunfire was going on, I started to feel a tingling, burning pain and numbness in my legs, looked down and saw blood and glass, and I remember thinking that I was shot. I also remember hearing the glass break on the car, starting with Paul’s window, then the back window, and then my window.

While I was ducking toward the back of the car, I felt something hit the front of my car. I picked up my head, partially sat up, looked forward and felt a fast burning sensation on the right side of my forehead. The reason I picked up my head was because the police car hit my car. I did not see any police officers in front of me, just the white police car. I immediately put my head back down . . .”

VI. ADDITIONAL VIDEO EVIDENCE

A. Body Camera Video

1. HPD Officer Devin Eaton

Officer Eaton was wearing an Axon body camera issued by the HPD. The camera must be manually activated in order to record visual and audio events. It was determined that the power on Officer Eaton’s body camera was “on,” but he did not activate the camera until after the shooting occurred. Nonetheless, the body camera system constantly buffers and stores thirty (30) seconds of muted video. Therefore, after the camera is activated, the video includes the thirty (30) second buffered video that was captured prior to activation.

The eighteen minute, forty-nine second (18:49) video begins at 4:31:57 a.m. and ends at 4:50:46 a.m. It shows Officer Eaton’s actions, as well as the aftermath of the shooting. Officer Eaton can be seen exiting his cruiser on Argyle Street and pointing his handgun in the direction of the red Honda Civic. The driver’s door of the red Honda Civic opened and Witherspoon began to exit the vehicle. As Witherspoon was doing so, Officer Eaton began firing toward him. Witherspoon retreated into the vehicle while Officer Eaton continued firing, moving around to the rear, and then to the passenger’s side of the red Honda Civic. After firing multiple shots into the passenger’s side of the red Honda Civic, Officer Eaton ran eastbound on the sidewalk of Argyle Street, while still firing additional shots behind him toward the red Honda Civic.

At this time, Officer Eaton activated his body camera, initiating both audio and video. He can be heard reporting “shots fired” to dispatch and providing his location. He further reports that the car was “boxed in,” that he could not see the suspect, and that the suspect might be down. As other officers arrived on scene, Officer Eaton can be heard saying “careful, careful, he’s right there.” Officer Eaton remained behind cover with his gun pointed toward the red Honda Civic until backup officers approached the car. He then approached and assisted in removing Witherspoon from the red Honda Civic.

Body camera footage also captures Officer Eaton recounting his recollection of the shooting multiple times to fellow officers on the scene, including supervisors. With respect to his interaction with Witherspoon, Officer Eaton initially stated to a fellow HPD officer who arrived on scene that:

“. . . I got out of my car, I said ‘show me your fucking hands,’ he got out of the car, I saw a 128 [gun].”[8]

This explanation is consistent with what Officer Eaton related to CDMCS investigators in his written statement, wherein he provided:

“. . . After I exited the vehicle with my service weapon pointed in the direction of the operator, I ordered him to show me his hands. I couldn’t tell whether the window of the Honda was open or closed but I thought the operator would put his hands either up or through the window . . .”

However, some of Officer Eaton’s other statements captured on the body camera footage are at variance with his written statement in three respects: (1) as to whether Officer Eaton ordered Witherspoon out of the car[9]; (2) as to whether Witherspoon pointed something at Officer Eaton; and (3) whether Officer Eaton heard gunshots, which he perceived to be coming from Witherspoon.

a) Did Officer Eaton order Witherspoon out of the car?

On two separate occasions Officer Eaton is heard telling fellow officers on video that he ordered Witherspoon out of the car. At approximately 4:38:18 a.m., an HPD Sergeant asked Officer Eaton “what exactly happened?” In response, Officer Eaton stated:

“. . . I saw them parking . . . nose in. I turned around, I turned around, went to swing on this street. He was pulling out. Stopped my car, got out, told him to ‘get out, show me your hands.’ He opened his car door, I saw him point something at me and then I shot.”

Later, at 4:41:31 a.m., Officer Eaton stated:

“. . . I pulled up, I got out of my car, I said ‘show me your hands, get the fuck out of the car,’ he kicks open the door, I saw something, I saw it.”

These statements captured on video are contrary to Officer Eaton’s statement to CDMCS investigators, in which he stated:

“. . . immediately after I exited my patrol vehicle and ordered the operator to show me his hands, I saw the driver’s door of the Honda unexpectedly swing open. The operator then began to suddenly exit the vehicle. . .” (emphasis added).

b) Did Witherspoon point something at Officer Eaton?

In addition, Officer Eaton is heard telling fellow officers multiple times on scene that Witherspoon pointed something at him. In his written statement, Officer Eaton never provided investigators with this information. Rather, he stated that it appeared Witherspoon was not holding anything in his left hand, but that “as he began to turn towards me, I saw the operator begin to raise his right arm up and it appeared that he was holding an object in his right hand, which I believed to be a gun.”

The body camera footage from Officer Eaton was submitted to the Connecticut State Forensic Laboratory for enhancement. The Multimedia and Image Enhancement Unit report dated May 31, 2019 states: “. . . [d]river pushes open driver’s door; [r]eflection from wrist watch on driver’s left wrist; [d]river partially exiting vehicle with both hands in view and open; [p]olice officer’s firearm discharges; [d]river’s arm drops and wrist watch is visible on left wrist . . .” In a supplemental report dated October 3, 2019, the analyst further notes that, due to the poor quality of the video, it cannot be determined if an object is present in either hand. [10]

While the poor quality of the video may preclude the Connecticut State Forensic Laboratory from making a determination as to whether Witherspoon is holding anything in either hand - at a minimum the video does not support Officer Eaton’s verbal statements captured on body camera that Witherspoon pointed something in his direction prior to the initial shot.

c) Did Officer Eaton hear gunshots as he was moving around to the rear of the red Honda Civic?

Lastly, Officer Eaton is never heard on body camera stating that he heard gunshots. However, in his written statement, Officer Eaton tells investigators that he “heard the sound of gunshots as [he] was moving around to the rear of the Honda and perceived the gunshots to be coming from the operator.” See Appendix B. As previously noted, the operator, Witherspoon, did not have a gun. Further, Officer Eaton had already fired eight (8) times and was on the passenger’s side of the red Honda Civic before Officer Pollock exited his cruiser and fired his first shot. See Section II.D.2., supra.

2. YPD Officer Terrance Pollock

Officer Pollock was wearing a Watch Guard body camera issued by YPD. As indicated in Officer Pollock’s statement, he attempted to activate his body camera during the incident, however, he had powered the camera “off” prior to the incident. See Appendix A. Following analysis, the Connecticut State Forensic Laboratory confirmed that no video of the shooting incident was captured. Officer Pollock’s body camera was ultimately activated after the shooting occurred and provided views of the scene, as well as Pollock’s verbal description of what occurred, which was limited due to the fact that he was transported for treatment of a gunshot wound. What was captured is consistent with the written statement he later provided to CDMCS investigators.

B. Dashboard Camera Video

1. HPD Officer Devin Eaton

The HPD cruiser driven by Officer Eaton was not equipped with a dashboard camera.

2. YPD Officer Terrance Pollock

As previously noted, CDMCS investigators also seized the Watch Guard DVR 2-035607 hard drive from Officer Pollock’s YPD vehicle. This hard drive was analyzed by the Connecticut State Forensic Laboratory, YPD Information Technology Division, and the manufacturer, Watch Guard. No video was recorded during the incident. According to a report written by Watch Guard dated May 6, 2019, there was no DVR video available because the system did not automatically power back on, as it was supposed to, when Officer Pollock turned on the vehicle. Watch Guard indicated that this failure was due to the manner in which the DVR operates and was not attributed to Officer Pollock’s actions.

VII. BULLET STRIKES AND TRAJECTORY

CDMCS investigators, assisted by Connecticut State Forensic Laboratory personnel, were assigned to document all suspected bullet strikes and trajectory angles, if possible. Of the sixteen (16) documented shots fired, investigators identified fourteen (14) corresponding bullet strikes. Investigators utilized trajectory rods and string in order to document bullet trajectory. Investigators were unable to determine the trajectory of all projectiles, however, general direction was documented. The sequence of the bullet strikes was not able to be determined.

A. Mitsubishi Lancer

There was one bullet strike located on the front license plate of the Mitsubishi Lancer. The projectile which struck the front license plate was recovered from the engine compartment of the vehicle. Based on Officer Pollock’s position as verified on video, Officer Pollock was the only person who fired in the direction of the Mitsubishi Lancer.

B. YPD Cruiser

There was one bullet strike to the rear windshield of the YPD cruiser and a projectile was seized from the interior roof of the YPD cruiser. Based on Officer Pollock’s position as verified on video, Officer Pollock was the only person who fired from the rear of the YPD cruiser.

There was also one bullet strike to the front bumper of the YPD cruiser. Based on Officer Eaton’s position as verified on video, Officer Eaton was the only person who fired from the front of the YPD cruiser.

C. Red Honda Civic

There was one bullet strike to the windshield of the red Honda Civic. Investigators determined that the projectile traveled from the front of the vehicle to the back; more specifically, it passed through the passenger’s side of the windshield and struck the plastic on the passenger’s side of the C pillar, falling into the trunk. Based on Officer Pollock’s position as verified on video, Officer Pollock was the only person who fired from the front of the red Honda Civic.

There were two (2) bullet strikes to the rear window of the red Honda Civic. Based on Officer Eaton’s position as verified on video, Officer Eaton was the only person who fired from the rear of the red Honda Civic.

There were eight (8) bullet strikes to the passenger’s side door/window of the red Honda Civic, of which, four (4) penetrated the passenger compartment of the vehicle. Based on Officer Eaton’s position as verified on video, Officer Eaton was the only person who fired from the passenger’s side of the red Honda Civic.

D. Ballistic Analysis

In total eight projectiles and five bullet fragments were seized from various locations to include the roadway at the scene, the YPD cruiser, the HPD cruiser, the Honda Civic, and the Mitsubishi Lancer. Due to the damage sustained by the projectiles, the Connecticut State Forensic Laboratory could not identify which weapon the projectiles were fired from.[11]

VIII. EMERGENCY MEDICAL RESPONSE

An American Medical Response (AMR) ambulance was dispatched at 4:35 a.m., on a report of a person shot, as well as a possible YPD officer shot. Additional units were dispatched at 4:36 a.m., and the first AMR unit arrived at 4:39 a.m. Washington was transported from the scene to Yale New Haven Hospital at approximately 4:46 a.m. Washington’s injuries were documented at the scene as gunshot wounds in the right flank and buttocks areas, as well as a small laceration above her right eye. Washington self-reported to medics that she fell out of the car.

IX. MEDICAL RECORDS

A. Stephanie Washington

Medical records for Washington were obtained from Yale New Haven Hospital by means of a court ordered search and seizure warrant. Washington was admitted on April 16, 2019 and discharged on April 20, 2019. Washington suffered multiple injuries, to include, inter alia, one gunshot wound to the left upper thigh/glute area, which traveled left to right, fracturing her pelvis and spine, with bullet fragments exiting her right flank through two exit wounds. Washington suffered an abrasion to her forehead, which according to her medical records, was attributed to her falling on the pavement upon exiting the red Honda Civic.

B. Officer Pollock

Medical records for Officer Pollock were obtained from Yale New Haven Hospital by way of his written consent. Officer Pollock was admitted on April 16, 2019 and released the same day. Officer Pollock suffered one gunshot graze wound to his right calf.

X. CAUSATION OF INJURIES

Analysis has determined that Officers Eaton and Pollock were the only individuals who discharged firearms during this incident. As indicated, in an effort to determine which of the two officers was responsible for causing Washington’s injuries, CDMCS investigators, with the assistance of the Connecticut State Forensic Laboratory, sought to identify the trajectory of the rounds fired vis-à-vis Washington’s location in the vehicle.

Investigators attempted to identify the trajectory of the thirteen (13) shots fired by Officer Eaton. See Sections II. and VII., supra. It was determined that Officer Eaton fired eight (8) shots at the passenger’s side door/window of the red Honda Civic, four (4) of which penetrated the interior compartment of the vehicle in the area where Washington was seated. In her statement to CDMCS investigators, Washington stated that after she heard gunshots, she “leaned between the driver and passenger seats, toward the backseat, trying to take cover from the gunshots.” In this position, it can be reasonably inferred that Washington’s left thigh/glute area was exposed to projectiles that penetrated the interior compartment of the red Honda Civic from outside the passenger’s side door. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence and the reasonable and logical inferences to be drawn therefrom, the injuries sustained by Washington were caused by a projectile fired from Officer Eaton’s firearm.

As identified in Section VII., supra, CDMCS investigators, with the assistance of the Connecticut State Forensic Laboratory, were able to identify the trajectory of all three (3) shots fired by Officer Pollock. The trajectory of Officer Pollock’s three (3) shots establishes that only one shot struck the red Honda Civic. That projectile struck the front windshield and traveled from the front of the vehicle to the back; more specifically, it passed through the passenger’s side of the windshield and struck the plastic on the passenger’s side of the C pillar, falling into the trunk. Therefore, it is a reasonable and logical inference to eliminate this projectile as striking and causing injury to Washington.

Further, the trajectory of Officer Pollock’s three (3) shots establishes that his calf injury was not self-inflicted. On the basis of the evidence and the reasonable and logical inferences to be drawn therefrom, the injury sustained by Officer Pollock, likewise, was caused by a projectile fired from Officer Eaton’s firearm.

XI. LAW CONCERNING USE OF DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE BY A POLICE OFFICER

Connecticut General Statutes §53a-22(c) permits a police officer, inter alia, to use deadly physical force upon another person when he reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. “Deadly physical force” is defined by Connecticut General Statutes §53a-3(5) as “physical force that can be reasonably expected to cause death or serious physical injury,” while “serious physical injury” is defined by Connecticut General Statutes §53a-3(4) as “physical injury, which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.”

The test to determine whether an officer’s belief is reasonable pursuant to §53a-22 is both subjective and objective. State v. Smith, 73 Conn. App. 173, 198, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 923 (2002). First, the officer must honestly believe that the use of deadly force is necessary to defend himself or another from the imminent use of deadly physical force in the immediate circumstances. Id. The second part of the test requires that the officer’s belief be objectively reasonable. Id. That is, if the officer in fact believed that deadly force was necessary, it must then be determined whether that belief was reasonable, from the perspective of a reasonable police officer in the officer’s circumstances. Id., citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396(1989) (evaluating reasonableness of police officer’s belief that deadly force justified in context of fourth amendment excessive use of force claims, stating that “[t]he [objective] reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”)

This subjective-objective test must be applied in evaluating the actions of Officers Eaton and Pollock on Argyle Street in the early morning hours of April 16, 2019.

XII. RECOMMENDATIONS

As the chief law enforcement officer of the Judicial District of New Haven, the charging decision in any criminal investigation properly rests with the State’s Attorney. In exercising that function with respect to an officer’s use of deadly physical force, the State’s Attorney is mindful of the guidance offered by the United States Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor, supra, 490 U.S. at 396-397, wherein the Court acknowledged that “[t]he calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance of the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”

A. Hamden Police Officer Devin Eaton

In reviewing the actions of Officer Eaton, the allowances as described by the Supreme Court in Graham have been taken into account. Nonetheless, based upon the preceding facts and circumstances as found by the CDMCS and pursuant to prevailing Connecticut law, State’s Attorney Griffin finds that the use of deadly physical force by Officer Devin Eaton was not objectively reasonable and, therefore, not justified.

As Officer Eaton’s own statements captured on body camera indicate, Officer Eaton ordered Paul Witherspoon out of the car and to show his hands. Witherspoon, for his part, stated that he was told to exit the vehicle and to show his hands. Witherspoon appeared to comply with Officer Eaton’s orders and exited the red Honda Civic with his hands up.

Officer Eaton maintains in his written statement that he believed Witherspoon was holding a gun in his right hand. While the poor quality of the video may preclude a definitive determination as to whether Witherspoon is holding anything in either hand, there is no evidence that Witherspoon had a gun. Further, there is no evidence to conclude that Witherspoon pointed anything in Officer Eaton’s direction. Officer Eaton reacted to the manner in which Witherspoon exited the car by firing his initial shot. Officer Eaton was not met with any return gunfire. Instead, Witherspoon retreated back into the car. Nonetheless, Officer Eaton continued to fire his weapon, moving to the rear of the red Honda Civic and ultimately to the passenger’s side. By his own admission, Officer Eaton was aware there was a female front seat passenger.

Even if an argument can be made that the initial shot fired at Witherspoon was reasonable because Officer Eaton believed that Witherspoon held something in his hand – it was not objectively reasonable for Officer Eaton to continue to move around the red Honda Civic while firing his weapon into the passenger compartment - particularly in light of the fact that, by his own admission, Officer Eaton was aware of Washington’s presence. In total Officer Eaton fired thirteen (13) shots in the direction of the red Honda Civic, eight (8) of which were directed at the passenger’s side of the vehicle where he knew Stephanie Washington was seated. Under circumstances evincing an extreme indifference to human life, he recklessly engaged in conduct which created a risk of death, and thereby caused serious physical injury to Washington. Additionally, the reckless manner in which the shots were discharged placed those in the immediate vicinity, including Paul Witherspoon and Officer Pollock, at risk for serious physical injury.

Officer Eaton’s contention that he was responding to shots being fired at him is simply not supported by the evidence. Rather, in direct contradiction, Officer Pollock, the only other armed individual at the scene, did not exit his cruiser and fire his first shot until Officer Eaton had already fired eight (8) times and was on the passenger’s side of the red Honda Civic.

Based upon the independent review of the investigative materials, State’s Attorney Griffin has recommended that the CDMCS investigators submit an arrest warrant for review and judicial authorization charging Devin Eaton with: Assault First Degree, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes §53a-59(a)(3),[12] related to the injuries sustained by Stephanie Washington; Reckless Endangerment First Degree, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes §53a-63,[13] related to Paul Witherspoon; and Reckless Endangerment First Degree, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes §53a-63, related to Officer Terrance Pollock. State’s Attorney Griffin stresses that criminal charges are merely accusations and Devin Eaton is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

B. Yale University Police Officer Terrance Pollock

There is no evidence that a shot fired by Officer Pollock struck Stephanie Washington. As such, State’s Attorney Griffin cannot conclude that Ms. Washington was injured as a result of Officer Pollock’s use of deadly physical force. Regardless, based upon the preceding facts and circumstances as found by the CDMCS, and pursuant to prevailing Connecticut law, State’s Attorney Griffin concludes that the actions of Officer Terrance Pollock in discharging his weapon were objectively reasonable and, therefore, justified.

Officer Pollock was confronted with a situation in which a fellow officer was conducting a motor vehicle stop of a potentially armed robbery suspect. From Officer Pollock’s vantage point, he observed Officer Eaton approach the red Honda Civic and Witherspoon appear to exit. Officer Pollock was unable to hear any conversation because he was seated in his cruiser with the windows closed. He heard a series of gunshots and believed that Officer Eaton and Witherspoon were exchanging gunfire. Still seated in his cruiser, he heard what he correctly perceived to be a bullet strike the front of his cruiser. Based upon his observations, Officer Pollock believed that Witherspoon was firing at both officers. Officer Pollock exited his cruiser and discharged his weapon three (3) times in the direction of Witherspoon before retreating. During the course of the incident Officer Pollock was wounded in the right calf by a shot fired by Officer Eaton.

Based on the law as outlined above, these facts would not support a criminal charge. Accordingly, no further action will be taken by the Division of Criminal Justice with respect to Officer Pollock.

XIII. CONCLUSIONS

State’s Attorney Griffin commends the YPD, HPD, and NHPD for their ongoing efforts to address the most pressing issues identified as a result of this incident, which include, inter alia: the crossing of municipal boundaries by police officers;[14] the policies and procedures regarding the use of body worn cameras and vehicle video recording equipment; inter-department communications; and de-escalation training.

These efforts have included the engagement of 21CP Solutions, an independent firm composed of experts in policing, with experience in law enforcement, social science, civil rights, law, psychology, and organizational management, that helps communities across the country address their most significant and difficult policing challenges. 21CP Solutions assists with identifying opportunities, providing specific roadmaps to progress, and actively helping to implement new approaches to policing.

Toward this end, these consultants are currently leading a collaborative analysis of the incident, which involves YPD, HPD, and NHPD. This analysis will analyze the incident from all available sources to better understand the facts and circumstances which led to the use of deadly physical force and will be aimed at modification of policy and procedures as deemed appropriate. In addition, they are conducting an overall assessment of the involved police departments’ operations, including review of departmental structure, policies, procedures, training, staffing, technology, and deployment of assets. The State’s Attorney believes this openness to outside professional review of departmental policies will benefit the entire community and looks forward to the results of this endeavor.

In the aftermath of this incident, members of the Greater New Haven community have raised questions concerning the legal authority vested in Yale University police officers. The State’s Attorney believes this is an appropriate time to emphasize that the Yale University Police Department is a full service police agency in the State of Connecticut, whose police officers must be certified and must renew such certification as required by the Police Officer Standards and Training Council (POSTC). See Public Act 83-466 §3. Yale University police officers are appointed by the City of New Haven, acting through its board of commissioners. Thus, Yale University police officers have all the powers conferred upon municipal police officers for the City of New Haven and, as such, their power and authority is not limited to Yale University campus or Yale University properties.

State’s Attorney Griffin would like to thank Commissioner James Rovella and the Connecticut State Police, in particular the CDMCS investigators, as well as the Connecticut State Forensic Laboratory, who have worked continuously to complete this thorough and rigorous investigation in a timely and transparent manner.

State’s Attorney Griffin also thanks Chief Ronnell Higgins and the Yale University Police Department, Chief John Cappiello and the Hamden Police Department, and Chief Otoniel Reyes and the New Haven Police Department, for their cooperation in ensuring the integrity of the investigative process.

Finally, State’s Attorney Griffin thanks the injured parties, particularly Stephanie Washington, as well as the entire Greater New Haven community, for their patience and understanding over the past six months.