State Supreme Court hears arguments in a Hartford police case that could force officers to follow traffic laws while trying to surveil suspected criminals

The state Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that could require police officers to follow traffic laws while trying to secretly surveil suspected criminals, a change racial justice advocates claim could help ease inner city mistrust of law enforcement but others believe will undermine public safety.

The case arose from the Hartford Police Department’s efforts in 2013 to combat quality of life crime created by gangs of people tearing around city streets on illegal motorcycles, dirt bikes, mopeds and all-terrain vehicles. Acting on a tip from an informant that Devonte Daley, then 18, was part of such a group and was carrying a gun, plain-clothes detective Zachary Kashmanian was assigned to tail Daley in an unmarked police car. The detective’s car struck Daley’s motorcycle, launching him 90 feet and causing him near-fatal injuries, including a permanent disability caused by traumatic brain injury.

Daley sued Kashmanian and the City of Hartford for negligence and recklessness, arguing that unsafe driving and disregard of traffic laws was responsible for the collision. The trial judge issued a directed verdict absolving Kashmanian on the recklessness claim and later set aside a jury verdict for Daley on the negligence claim, finding that Kashmanian was entitled to government immunity because he was exercising appropriate discretion while acting on instruction from his police superiors.

The Supreme Court has allowed outside groups to join the case as friends of the court. The groups called on the court to prohibit police agencies from breaking traffic laws while secretly surveilling criminal suspects. They claim the practice creates traffic mayhem that disproportionately endangers people and increases mistrust of the the police in inner city areas where police surveillance is common.

Among the groups filing briefs was Black and Brown United in Action, which contends that the Hartford incident is evidence of its belief that “the Black and Brown communities within Connecticut have been targeted for and subject to lawless attacks by police.”

When the state’s intermediate Appellate Court heard an initial appeal, it reversed the trial court’s directed verdict on the recklessness claim, finding that the trial judge should have left the question to the jury. The Appellate Court upheld the trial court decision that Kashmanian was entitled to immunity for negligence, rejecting an argument by Daley’s lawyer, Martin McQuillan, that the detective had a duty to comply with all traffic laws. The Appellate Court said that it was within Kashmanian’s discretion to decide whether to comply with traffic laws while engaged in surveillance.

The Appellate Court also said Daley’s argument “would make effective police surveillance impossible in many instances.” Detectives would lose sight of speeding suspects, those running red lights or driving the wrong way down one-way streets, the court said.

“Deciding whether the need to maintain surveillance of the person or vehicle being surveilled outweighs the risk to public safety caused by the violation of a motor vehicle statute requires the sound judgment of the police officer, and, is, therefore, inherently discretionary,” the Appellate Court said.

In their questions Wednesday, the justices didn’t signal a tilt one way or the other, but seemed interested in when police conduct moves from negligence to recklessness — losing the protection of government immunity. They focused, too, on the details of the collision, in particular whether Kashmanian was engaged in pursuit, rather than surveillance. To engage in a lawful pursuit under state law, police officers must drive marked police cars equipped with sirens and lights.

Kashmanian was part of a team of police officers working on June 1, 2013, in an effort to combat what his lawyer, William J. Melley, called “a plague” of illegal off-road vehicle operators. The detective was driving what police call a “soft car” — an unmarked police vehicle with tinted windows and without lights, siren or any police insignia — when he was notified that an informant had reported the driver of a yellow motorcycle was carrying a gun. Kashmanian was instructed to follow the motorcycle operator, who turned out to be Daley.

Daley was among a group of eight or 10 operators of illegal vehicles racing west on Asylum Avenue shortly after midnight. Kashmanian drove to Asylum just as the group careened right onto Sumner Street, with a 25-mile-per-hour speed limit. As Kashmanian followed into the turn, his car sideswiped one driven by another driver. Kashmanian paused, but his superiors told him to continue to follow Daley. He was told another officer would stop to handle the collision.

Kashmanian resumed driving north on Sumner Street at between 40 and 50 miles per hour when he was forced to move into the southbound lane to avoid two quad vehicles that had fishtailed and struck his car. Kashmanian continued traveling north, closing the distance between his car and Daley’s motorcycle until he struck Daley’s rear tire. The collision caused Daley to crash into a parked car. He “was ejected from his motorcycle and landed approximately 95 feet down Sumner Street, causing him significant injuries,” the state Appellate Court said in its decision.