Brudney v. Ematrudo
1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14510, 414 F. Supp. 1187 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An accidental injury to a bystander caused by a police officer's reasonable and good-faith use of force to restore order or protect another officer does not constitute a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or an actionable assault and battery under state law.
Facts:
- On May 11, 1972, Karen Brudney, a Yale student, was attending a demonstration protesting the presence of a Marine Corps recruiter on campus.
- The demonstration grew to over 100 people, and a group of plain-clothed police officers, including Peter Ematrudo, formed a line to ensure access to the building.
- Physical confrontations erupted between protestors and police when some students attempted to enter the building.
- During the melee, another officer, Detective Giannotti, was knocked to the ground and attacked by several student demonstrators.
- Ematrudo rushed to aid Giannotti and, after a verbal warning went unheeded, used his blackjack to strike a male demonstrator who was assaulting the fallen officer.
- As Ematrudo's blackjack struck the male demonstrator, it glanced off and accidentally hit Brudney's head.
- Brudney sustained a minor injury, specifically a forehead contusion.
Procedural Posture:
- Karen Brudney filed a lawsuit against Officer Peter Ematrudo in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, which is a federal trial court.
- The complaint alleged a violation of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a pendent state law claim for assault and battery.
- A bench trial (a trial with a judge but no jury) was held before the district court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer violate a bystander's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or commit assault and battery under state law when he accidentally strikes the bystander while using reasonable and necessary force to defend a fellow officer from an attack?
Opinions:
Majority - Zampano, District Judge
No, the police officer's conduct did not violate the bystander's constitutional rights or constitute an assault and battery. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, police conduct must not "shock the conscience." Applying the factors from Johnson v. Glick, the court found the defendant's use of force was necessary to aid a fellow officer under assault, the amount of force was reasonable and limited, and it was applied in a good-faith effort to restore order, not maliciously to cause harm. The minor nature of the injury further supports that the defendant did not act with malice. Because the officer's actions were a justified and controlled response to a violent situation, the accidental glancing blow to the plaintiff did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Similarly, under Connecticut tort law, the defendant exercised due care and acted within reasonable limits, thus he did not commit an actionable assault and battery.
Analysis:
This case provides a key application of the 'shocks the conscience' standard for § 1983 police brutality claims, as articulated in Johnson v. Glick. It establishes that an officer's intent and the surrounding circumstances are critical in evaluating the constitutionality of their use of force. The decision clarifies that an accidental injury to an innocent third party does not automatically create liability if the officer's underlying use of force was justified, reasonable, and made in good faith. This precedent is significant for distinguishing between unfortunate accidents occurring during legitimate police actions and genuine acts of police brutality.
