Santana v. City of Hartford

• Decision Date: 21 March 2006
• Docket Number: No. 25994.,25994.
• Citation: 894 A.2d 307,94 Conn.App. 445
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: Alberto SANTANA v. CITY OF HARTFORD. Alberto Santana v. Bruce P. Marquis et al.

894 A.2d 307

94 Conn.App. 445

Alberto SANTANA v. CITY OF HARTFORD.

Alberto Santana v. Bruce P. Marquis et al.

No. 25994.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued November 17, 2005.

Decided March 21, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Kimball Haines Hunt, Hartford, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Helen Apostolidis, assistant corporation counsel, for the appellees (defendants).

LAVERY, C.J., and SCHALLER and GRUENDEL, Js.^*

SCHALLER, J.

The plaintiff, Alberto Santana, appeals from the judgment rendered in two consolidated actions. In the first action, the plaintiff unsuccessfully sought indemnification pursuant to General Statutes § 53-39a. In the second action, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to reinstatement as a Hartford police officer following the judgment of acquittal on underlying criminal charges.¹ On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) found that the crimes of which he was acquitted were not allegedly committed in the course of his duty as a police officer, (2) determined that the defendant city of Hartford (city) had the power to continue his suspension after his acquittal and (3) determined that his suspension without pay did not violate the state and federal constitutional guarantees of due process. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The court reasonably found, on the basis of a stipulation jointly filed by the parties, the following facts. The plaintiff became a Hartford police officer on August 16, 1985. On February 18, 1993, he was suspended without pay as a result of his arrest on felony charges. In December, 1994, as a result of the findings of an investigative grand jury, a second arrest warrant was issued and the charges were consolidated in an amended long form information.

The amended long form information, dated February 6, 2001, charged the plaintiff with the sale of a narcotic substance by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278(b), possession of a narcotic substance with the intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of § 21a-278(b), conspiracy to distribute narcotics by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48(a) and 21a-278(b), conspiracy to sell a controlled substance in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48(a) and 21a-277(b), and racketeering activity in violation of General Statutes § 53-395(c). On March 20, 2001, the jury found the plaintiff not guilty as to three of the counts, and on July 12, 2001, a judgment of acquittal was rendered on the remaining counts.²

On July 17, 2001, the plaintiff, a member of the Hartford police union (union), requested that he be reinstated as a police officer. On July 31, 2001, the union filed on behalf of the plaintiff a grievance against the city regarding the failure to reinstate him. Various proceedings ensued, and the plaintiff's employment ultimately was terminated on June 6, 2002.

During the course of the administrative proceedings, the plaintiff initiated his first action, alleging that pursuant to § 53-39a, he was entitled to reimbursement for his expenses incurred as a result of the criminal charges filed against him. Following the termination of his employment, he commenced the second action in which he claimed that he was entitled to back pay and reinstatement as a police officer. The court consolidated the two actions, and the parties submitted a stipulation of facts and three binders of documentary evidence.

The court found that the charged criminal activity was not allegedly committed in the course of the plaintiff's duties as a police officer. As a result, the court concluded that he was not entitled to statutory indemnification. The court further determined that the termination of the plaintiff's employment did not violate the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the city and the union and that the plaintiff's due process rights were not violated. Accordingly, the court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

The plaintiff first claims that the court improperly found that the crimes of which he was acquitted were not allegedly committed in the course of his duties as a police officer. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that he was entitled to economic indemnification under § 53-39a because the charged crimes allegedly were committed in the course of his employment as a police officer.³ We disagree.

At the outset, a brief review of § 53-39a will facilitate our discussion. We begin with the text of the statute. Section 53-39a provides in relevant part: "Whenever, in any prosecution of an officer of ... a local police department for a crime allegedly committed by such officer in the course of his duty as such, the charge is dismissed or the officer found not guilty, such officer shall be indemnified by his employing governmental unit for economic loss sustained by him as a result of such prosecution, including the payment of any legal fees necessarily incurred. . . ." Our Supreme Court has instructed that this statute, because it abrogates and modifies governmental immunity, should be strictly construed. Rawling v. New Haven, 206 Conn. 100, 105, 537 A.2d 439 (1988); see also Cislo v. Shelton, 240 Conn. 590, 598, 692 A.2d 1255 (1997).

"Section 53-39a ... was originally enacted in 1973; see Public Acts 1973, No. 73-627.... The general purpose of the statute is to permit police officers to recoup the necessary expenses that they have incurred in defending themselves against unwarranted criminal charges arising out of their conduct in the course of their employment." (Citation omitted.) Cislo v. Shelton, supra, 240 Conn. at 598, 692 A.2d 1255. In order to obtain the benefit of the statute, a police officer must sustain a twofold burden of proof; that is, he must show that the charges against him were dismissed, or that he was acquitted, and that the charges arose in the course of his duty as a police officer. Rawling v. New Haven, supra, 206 Conn. at 106, 537 A.2d 439.

In the present case, it is undisputed that the plaintiff was acquitted of the charges filed against him, thus satisfying the first prong.⁴ We turn our attention, therefore, to the second prong. Our Supreme Court's decision in Link v. Shelton, 186 Conn. 623, 443 A.2d 902 (1982),⁵ is the appropriate starting point for our analysis. "[I]n the course of his duty is not defined by the statute or explained by legislative history. As a term of art, or technical phrase, it has a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law and shall be construed and understood accordingly.... Because the statute does not define the phrase, we must look elsewhere for the peculiar and appropriate meaning of in the course of his duty. We may look to the meaning given the same phrase in unrelated statutes, in this case the workers' compensation statutes; General Statutes § 31-275 et seq.; and consider that where the legislature uses the same phrase it intends the same meaning." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Link v. Shelton, supra, at 627, 443 A.2d 902; see also Crotty v. Naugatuck, 25 Conn.App. 599, 603, 595 A.2d 928 (1991). We therefore utilize "a three part test for deciding whether this statutory requirement has been met. Conduct will be found to have occurred in the course of duties if it took place (1) within the period of employment, (2) at a place where the employee could reasonably be, and (3) while the employee is reasonably fulfilling the duties of employment or doing something incidental to it." (Emphasis added.) Crotty v. Naugatuck, supra, at 603-604, 595 A.2d 928; see Rawling v. New Haven, supra, 206 Conn. at 106-107, 537 A.2d 439; see also Kish v. Nursing & Home Care, Inc., 248 Conn. 379, 383, 727 A.2d 1253 (1999).

We now identify the applicable standard of review. The question of whether the charges of alleged criminal conduct occurred in the course of the plaintiff's duty as a police officer is to be determined by the trier of fact. Rawling v. New Haven, supra, 206 Conn. at 106, 537 A.2d 439; Crotty v. Naugatuck, supra, 25 Conn.App. at 604, 595 A.2d 928. "Appellate review of a trial court's findings of fact is governed by the clearly erroneous standard of review. The trial court's findings are binding upon this court unless they are clearly erroneous in light of the evidence and the pleadings in the record as a whole.... A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it ... or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Arena v. Arena, 92 Conn.App. 463, 466, 885 A.2d 765 (2005); Palmieri v. Cirino, 90 Conn.App. 841, 846, 880 A.2d 172, cert. denied, 276 Conn. 927, 889 A.2d 817 (2005). In applying this deferential standard of review, we are mindful of the instruction that "[a]ppellate courts do not examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact could have reached a different conclusion [but instead determine whether the trial court's conclusion was] legally correct and factually supported." Hartford Electric Supply Co. v. Allen-Bradley Co., 250 Conn. 334, 367, 736 A.2d 824 (1999). Guided by these principles, we now turn to the specifics of the plaintiff's appeal.

The following additional facts are necessary for the resolution of this issue. An initial arrest warrant contained the following allegations against the plaintiff. Julio Davila Vasquez was arrested following surveillance by narcotics detectives. Vasquez gave an unsolicited statement that he had just packaged a substantial amount of heroin for sale. The detectives went to the apartment that Vasquez had left and knocked on the door. The door was...