Krukowski v. Swords, Civil No. 3:97cv0006 (AWT).
| Citation | 15 F.Supp.2d 188 |
| Decision Date | 09 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 3:97cv0006 (AWT). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | John KRUKOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. Patricia SWORDS, State's Attorney for the Judicial District of Tolland, in her official capacity; Michael Greenier, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as a Vernon Police Officer; Donald Skewes, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as a Vernon Police Officer; and Town of Vernon, Defendants. |
Jon L. Schoenhorn, Law Offices of Jon L. Schoenhorn, Hartford, CT, for John Krukowski.
Timothy J. Sugrue, Mitchell S. Brody, David M. Kutzner, Office of the Chief State's Attorney, Rocky Hill, CT, for Patricia Swords.
Michael J. Lefebvre, Michael J. McAndrews, McAndrews & Lefebvre, Hartford, CT, for Michael Greenier and Donald Skewes.
Jerome David Levine, Vernon, State's Atty, Vernon, CT, Michael J. Lefebvre, Michael J. McAndrews, McAndrews & Lefebvre, Hartford, CT, for Town of Vernon.
RULING ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In June 1994, plaintiff John Krukowski ("Krukowski") was arrested by members of the Vernon, Connecticut police department and charged with risk of injury to a minor under Connecticut General Statutes § 53-21. The state of Connecticut alleged six counts of risk of injury, premised upon a series photographic and videotaping sessions Krukowski conducted with an aspiring model in January 1994, when the girl was fifteen years old. After the state prosecution was resolved in his favor, Krukowski bought this federal civil rights action in which he seeks, inter alia, to enjoin the future application of § 53-21 against him for conducting similar modeling sessions with minor models on the grounds that such application violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Presently before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment directed to Krukowski's request for declaratory and injunctive relief contained in Count Two of the Amended Complaint, which is asserted against defendants Patricia Swords, State's Attorney for the Judicial District of Tolland ("Swords"), and the Town of Vernon.1 For the reasons set forth below, the defendants' motion for summary judgment2 is being denied and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is being granted.
Most of the relevant facts in this case have been stipulated to and are contained in the set of stipulated facts filed by the parties. See Doc. # 27. These stipulated facts, as well as the court's observations concerning the photographs, videotape and other exhibits submitted by the parties, are summarized below.
In early January 1994, Melissa Deane ("Deane"), who was born on August 22, 1978, hired Krukowski to be her agent in the modeling business.3 Krukowski's services were procured by Deane's mother, Marie Terry Riccio ("Riccio"), who, on January 5, 1994, signed a "Minor Release Form" indicating Deane's age and giving Krukowski authority to act as Deane's agent. See Notice Re: Exhibits for Preliminary Injunction Hearing [doc. #26]. On this same date, Deane also completed and signed a "Models Bio-Data Form", in which Deane was asked to describe how important various types of modeling were to her. See id. On a scale of one to ten, with ten indicating areas of greatest interest, Deane responded as follows: Fashion-6 High Fashion-0; Runway-3; Character-7; Bathing Suit-9; Lingerie-8; Nude-0; Semi-nude-6; and Art/Figure-6. See id.
On January 13, 1994, Krukowski, Deane and Riccio also signed an "Outline of semi nude modeling test for Melissa Deane", which provided in part as follows:
This test is to test Melissa['s] ability to work as a model in a semi nude environment under actual working conditions. The end result of this test will be Portfolio Photographs for the model ... The test will consist of 2 locations and styles of shooting. Location 1 will be in a home environment with assorted Lingerie. [T]he flavor will be to create some sexy catalog shots and boudoir. Location 2 will be in a studio and will reproduce a jeans advertisement ... The photographer Paul Duckett will be in charge of the shoot and John Krukowski will act as his assistant. Other members of the household may be called on to do some assisting with the project at location 1. It is agreed that Melissa has final authority and say about the amount of, or type of nudity or (semi-nudity) on the set. It is at Melissa's option to do lower or upper body nudity if she wishes for lingerie, boudoir, or art shots at location 1 or location 2.
Id. (emphasis added). Thus, both Deane and Riccio gave written permission for Krukowski to conduct modeling sessions with Deane, including specific permission for the sessions to include seminude posing by Deane.4
Krukowski made arrangements with a photographer, Paul Duckett ("Duckett"), to have several photographic sessions with Deane. Duckett had Deane sign several "model release" forms, which clearly indicate that Deane is a minor, and therefore Riccio also signed each form in the space provided. Krukowski and Duckett's sessions with Deane took place on January 5, 13, 20 and 26, 1994, either in the cellar of Krukowski's condominium or at Riccio's home. During the first session, at his condominium, Krukowski made a videotape of Deane while Duckett took still photographs. Riccio was present at all but one of the sessions, and apparently was fairly active in making suggestions as to what clothing and lingerie Deane should wear.5
The photographs and videotape submitted to the court show that Deane posed for Krukowski and Duckett dressed in various clothing and lingerie and also posed semi-nude. Many of the approximately 200 photographs submitted to the court are not in controversy as they were not the subject of the state's prosecution of Krukowski — for example, photographs of Deane in street clothes and close-up photographs of her face. As to the photographs in controversy here, one series shows Deane sitting on the floor wearing jeans, with her knees up and with no shirt or bra on. These photographs show the side view of her right breast.6 Another series of photographs shows Deane lying on her stomach on her mother's bed, wearing no shirt, and with her right breast partially exposed. Numerous other photographs present Deane lying on her mother's bed or in Krukowski's studio wearing her mother's skimpy lingerie. Finally, several photographs show Deane: (i) standing, wearing an unbuttoned silk shirt and panties; (ii) wearing an open fur coat; and (iii) wearing a fishnet outfit through which her breasts and buttocks are visible.
In addition to the photographs described above, the state's prosecution of Krukowski focused on his statements to Deane and his comments and conduct in making the videotape of Deane. The videotape shows Deane modeling bikini bathing suits, her mother's lingerie and other clothing. Having reviewed the videotape, the court is satisfied with the accuracy of the following partial description offered by the state court before which Krukowski was prosecuted:
During the video Krukowski can be heard to tell [Deane] to "seduce the Camera," to "act Sexy," to "Run your hand over your body and entice me like you want to ..." In this video Krukowski zooms in to show close up shots of [Deane]'s breasts and genital area. Krukowski asks [Deane] in the video if she shaves her legs and questions her In this questioning he was referring to the public area. The court observed that at one point in the video while [Deane] is clad in lingerie, Krukowski can be heard telling her to take her jacket off and "don't be afraid." [Deane] can be seen to hesitate and to state that she is nervous.
State v. Krukowski, 1996 WL 92209, at *4.
Approximately two days after the videotaping session, Deane, accompanied by Riccio, returned to Krukowski's condominium to receive an evaluation on how she did in the videotape. The plaintiff prepared a four-page typewritten evaluation based, in part, on the videotaping session. The evaluation contains numerous sections, including one that reviews Deane's pre-existing portfolio and another that discusses the self-image projected by Deane. Under the heading entitled "Modeling ability", Krukowski comments on Deane's potential in the various types of modeling enumerated in the "Models Bio-Data Form", discussed above. These comments reflect the special concerns that exist in the conduct of lingerie and semi-nude modeling involving minor models. For example, under "Lingerie" Krukowski writes:
This is your strongest area that I have seen so far. The biggest problem in this is your age. Very strict control of shoot situations will be required for this. Most of the work will be for Photographer's personal portfolios until you turn 18. You can expect that I will review with you what will be acceptable and not in this field of modeling. Custom model releases will be required for each shoot as well as strict control of materials. You have the ability to control the situation and you must be [in] full control until you turn 18 ... You have a strong ability to do well in this field when you come of age.
See Notice Re: Exhibits for Preliminary Injunction Hearing.
Under the heading "Semi nude", Krukowski suggested that Deane try a test session focusing on upper body nudity.7 See id. He emphasized that doing this type of modeling is "strictly marketing work" and "not meant as flaunting your body". Id. Krukowski also cautioned that, to succeed in this area, Deane would need to feel comfortable in the studio environment, with others present, while being nude or semi-nude. See id. In the "Summary" portion of his evaluation of Deane, Krukowski wrote:
I feel that you do have potential for modeling and that at this point in time you need to work on self confidence[,] facial expressions and toning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Sibley v. Watches
-
Perez v. Hoblock
...indicate that the ordinance will have any different impact on any third parties' interests in free speech ...."); Krukowski v. Swords, 15 F.Supp.2d 188, 197 n. 17 (D.Conn.1998) ("courts will not entertain a facial overbreadth challenge where the parties challenging the statute are those who......
-
Isler v. N.M. Activities Ass'n
...Bylaw, as previously written, was “impermissibly vague as applied to the activities in which he actually engaged.” Krukowski v. Swords, 15 F.Supp.2d 188, 202 (D.Conn.1998). In other words, Plaintiff “must demonstrate that a reasonable person would not have foreseen that the [Bylaw] would be......
-
Isler v. N.M. Activities Ass'n
...Bylaw, as previously written, was "impermissibly vague as applied to the activities in which he actually engaged." Krukowski v. Swords, 15 F. Supp. 2d 188, 202 (D. Conn. 1998). In other words, Plaintiff "must demonstrate that a reasonable person would not have foreseen that the [Bylaw] woul......