• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Take my husband but DO NOT TAKE my guns

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
Norwalk Police violated the CORE Second Amendment rights of Casey Doutel when they seized her firearms during the arrest of her husband on trumped up charges.

Keep watching this case for any civil actions that may be filed in the near future.

Here is a brief outline of what happend to Duane and Casey Doutel.

Staw Sequence of Events by: Duane Doutel




Sometime in 2009, I had a regularly scheduled 3-month checkup with Perry Patel at Staw’s office. On arrival, no Perry in evidence, and ended up seeing Staw himself. I was told at that time that Perry had taken a leave of absence to “care for a sick father”, and that he’d be back. A year later, he had not returned. I had no reason at this time to doubt Staw’s veracity. On inquiry, I was told that Perry had indeed returned and was working out of the Fairfield office. I didn’t check this, but do not believe this to be the case.


In September of 2010, upon going to Staw’s office for another regularly scheduled diabetic checkup, I was told that the ‘good doctor’ could no longer accept insurance, and that I’d have to pay cash and submit out-of-network paperwork to my insurance company to get reimbursed at a reduced rate. I was told that this was so because there was ‘a minor mixup’ and that the “good doctor” was in court trying to get it resolved. He also stated that his office would submit the out-of-network forms for me. Since this was very short notice, I opted to pay cash and go the out-of-network route, rather than put off a necessary diabetes checkup.



Throughout much of 2010, I had been seeing Dr. Altman for a torn right rotator cuff; by mid-January of 2011, he had determined the condition would require surgery, and instructed me to schedule a pre-op physical with my primary care physician, which I did. I had not had time to seek a new physician with all the inherent inconvenience of doing so, and needed the physical for a surgery tentatively scheduled for February 16, 2011; I scheduled an appointment with Staw for February 7, 2011.



On February 7, 2011, I went to Staw’s office in the afternoon (around 2:00). Staw’s office did an EKG and several blood tests ordered by Dr. Altman, and was physically examined by Staw. He stated at that time that if we added a few more tests, my insurance would cover the physical in full, and stated that we should also run the Hemoglobin A1C and cholesterol tests, since it had been several months since my last ones. With all I had been dealing with, it didn’t at that time occur to me that I had not been fasting, so I allowed his technician to draw the specimens. Essentially, what this amounted to was Staw’s attempt to “up-sell” me.

During the course of conversation, Staw casually moved my hat aside and saw my holstered firearm beneath it. He made some innocuous remark, whereupon I reminded him that this was not the first time he had seen it, since I had been carrying it since late 2007, and that I had a permit to carry it. This was an entirely friendly exchange. The appointment ended and I left the office.



On the afternoon of February 9, 2011, working at home, I received a call from Staw’s office. The caller stated that some of the tests were far out of bounds and I would need to repeat them. Something just felt wrong, and I asked the receptionist to have Staw call me.
While waiting for Staw to return my call, I began browsing the web to see if there had been any complaints about Staw, and came across a newspaper article stating that Staw had been convicted in Federal court of Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance fraud! On digging further, I found a PDF of the decision of the Department of Health and Human Services Department Appeals Board

. It turned out that he had been billing for physical therapist and physician assistant services as though they had been physician services. Because of this, he had been forbidden to participate in Medicare/Medicaid for a period of 10 years. My private insurance plan (through my wife’s employment) and others removed him from participation in their group plans as well.

By this point, it became very clear that I had been lied to and mislead regarding a number of things, notably the absence of Perry Patel from Staw’s practice and his inability to accept insurance anymore. This explained why Staw’s Norwalk office waiting room was always empty; it’s a rare thing these days that people can afford to pay cash for physician office visits and services, so clearly most of his other patients sought care elsewhere, as I would have done had I been aware of his conviction.

By the time Staw returned my call in the early evening, I knew I could no longer trust him as my primary care physician. I told him that I had found out about his conviction, that I now understood why Perry had disappeared from his practice, and that he had drawn blood
specimens for tests his staff had always led me to believe needed to be done after fasting, when I had not in fact been fasting. I told him that as of that moment, he was no longer my physician, that he should forward the results of the physical to Dr. Altman, and that Dr. Altman would make the determination as to surgery. I hung up the phone.



On the afternoon of Tuesday, February 15, 2011, still without a firm time for the surgery the next day, I called Dr. Altman’s assistant, and was told at time that they were still not in receipt of the needed results of the physical, and that as a result, the surgery could not be placed on the firm schedule and would have to be postponed until they received the results.



In the evening of Tuesday, February 16, 2011, still hoping to shift the surgery a few days rather than cancel it entirely, I called Staw’s office and left a voicemail message insisting that he forward the results of the physical to Dr. Altman immediately, that he had been paid for them out-of-pocket, and that he would provide them, or I would come to his office and demand them personally, and that a public argument “would not be pretty”. At no time did I imply in any way that I would harm him or his staff.



On Wednesday, February 16, at approximately 12:20 PM, my phone rings. The caller ID says Norwalk Police Dept. Accustomed to receiving fundraising calls from them , I think nothing of picking up the phone, in spite of the fact that I was deeply involved in a programming project. An officer informs me that he wants me to come into the PD to discuss a voicemail I left with Staw’s office. I was absolutely stunned; I’ve never done anything in my life that the police would be remotely interested in, and could not conceive of anything I might have said in this case that would have warranted any attention. I said no, I would not come to the PD, whereupon the officer asked if he could come out and talk to me. At first, I said he could; but as he goes on to warn me about not being armed when he comes out, I am getting more upset about this, and reverse myself. I told him specifically not to come to my house unless had some reason to arrest me, and not to come without a warrant, still thinking he’s really just rousting me. The officer then said he would come out and arrest me. The conversation ended.



Shortly before 1:00 PM of the same day, I receive another phone call from Norwalk PD,
instructing me to walk out of my house unarmed and with my hands in plain sight. At this point, I informed my wife on instant messaging that I was being arrested, and followed PD instructions. On exiting my house, I observe several cops looking in the windows of the house in front of mine, and call out to them to tell them they’re at the wrong house. I was instructed to raise my hands, walk toward them and turn around, whereupon I was handcuffed and searched. At this point, I was told ‘you’re under arrest’. No Miranda warnings were given me, nor was I shown any arrest or search warrant.

Three of the cops proceeded to walk into my house without asking permission, claiming they had to ‘clear the premises’. A couple of minutes later, I was led into my house, to find the cops already in the process of searching my house. They had already taken two .22 caliber rifles which belong to my wife, and one was in the process of attempting to empty the magazine of the Mossberg Model 500 shotgun we kept by the bedside. This is a pump-action, side-ejection port firearm; the officer was holding it upside-down, fishing one round out at a time, where he could simply have held it right-side up and worked the pump until it was empty. I remember thinking at the time how strange this was.

They had a list of weapons they were referring to, apparently, but asked where all the weapons were. They were apparently not aware that my wife has a valid carry permit, and showed no regard whatsoever for the fact that several of the weapons they were seizing were not on their list of weapons registered to me. They took them anyway.
I was driven to the PD and booked. While there, I asked a female officer why my Miranda rights had not been read to me, and was told

‘Oh, that’s only on TV; we only have to do that if we question you.’

 

Shawn Mitola

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Shelton
The crazy thing about this entire case is the sad fact that the Police ACTUALLY think they are right and that they are working within the confines of the law.... Not to mention the Judge who completely disregarded the constitution and rule of law by issuing that retarded temporary ruling. I just can't seem to fathom how people who are required to follow and uphold the law can disregard it whenever they see fit and continue to get away with it.
I guarantee you that even when you win this case and the charges are dropped and your firearms returned that as far as the judge is concerned you will have changed nothing. He will turn around and do the same thing to the next person that comes before his bench because he assumes that he can do whatever he wants because he wears a black robe and sits on the bench.

There needs to be real consequences to the police and judges and indeed even DA's that break laws, bend statutes to their needs or ignore fundamental constitutional rights.

The arresting officer should be fired and the rest of them that participated in the illegal search should be reprimanded and suspended without pay. Where is the common sense? where is the Due Process? Where is the justification?

I'm thoroughly disgusted with the justice system these days and I don't see any indications that it is going to get any better. It's only getting worse. I hope you take them for everything they have. I would sue all parties involved just to make a point.
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
The sad part is that an attorney is even needed in a case like this.

A competent judge should take one look at the facts before him and immediately start reprimanding the police as well as the DA.

Sadly, this is not how it is. Luckily, you have a great team on your side.
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
Only time will tell!! THANK YOU AGAIN ATTORNEY RACHEL BAIRD

DOCKET NO: S20N-CR11-0128328-S :
SUPERIOR COURT:
STATE OF CONNECTICUT :
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK AT NORWALK
v.
DUANE T. DOUTEL : JUNE 20, 2011

MOTION FOR HEARING AND NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS FOR
HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER

The Defendant Duane T. Doutel, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby provides notice that subpoenas hereto attached1 have issued in the above-captioned matter for hearing at 9:30 a.m. on June 24, 2011, in the Superior Court at 17 Belden Street, Norwalk, Connecticut, upon the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate dated May 23, 2011.

I. BACKGROUND
At oral argument held on May 20, 2011, before The Honorable Bruce Hudock upon the state’s unnoticed Motion to Modify the Terms and Conditions of the Defendant’s release to prohibit the Defendant from possessing firearms or seeking a state permit, the Court initially asked the state to file a “written motion regarding the condition of no temporary permits as well, and I’ll hear that motion as well as these motions at the appropriate time.” (May 20, 2011, Hr’g Tr. at 6:20-23)2 The Court then issued a “temporary order that he [Doutel] not apply for a special [sic] permit, and then I’ll [the Court] hear you on a motion for a permanent
condition of that order.” (May 20, 2011, Hr’g Tr. at 7:15-19) The state has not filed a “Motion for a Permanent Condition.” See also May 20, 2011, Hr’g Tr. at 10:20-23 (“Temporary order that Defendant not possess any weapons or apply for a pistol permit.”)


FOOTNOTE 1 Harry K. Rilling, Chief of Police, Norwalk Police Department (NPD); NPD Lieutenant Thomas Materra, NPD Officer Jared Zwickler, NPD Officer Frank Reda, NPD Officer Kenneth Fludd, NPD Officer Jeremy Salley, NPD Officer William Curwen, NPD Officer James Walsh, Department of Public Safety Detective Barbara Mattson, DPS Sergeant William Krauss; Dr. Igal Staw, Janine Roy, Sandy Staw.

II. HEARING ON THE TEMPORARY ORDER

The Court then informed the Defendant that if the Defendant wished to file a motion then “that is your [the Defendant’s] right to do so.” (May 20, 2011, Hr’g Tr. at 8:18) The Court informed the Defendant that the Court was “allowing you [the Defendant] the opportunity to have a full hearing. I [the Court] have indicated to you this is a temporary condition.” (May 20, 2011, Hr’g Tr. at 8:27-9:1-2) The Court further stated: “I’ve indicated

to you that I will entertain a motion to revise the condition. It is a temporary order.” (May 20, 2011, Hr’g Tr. at 9:10-12) The Court declined to assign a specific date for the Defendant’s hearing on the temporary order. (May 20, 2011, Hr’g Tr. at 9:16-17) The Court then stated its intention to “indicate to the Clerk’s office about the scheduling of the motions.” (May 20, 2011, Hr’g Tr. at 9) The matter was continued until June 24, 2011, for a status conference. The Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate Order on May 23, 2011.


III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, for the reasons stated on the record at the May 20, 2011, unnoticed hearing on the state’s motion to modify the terms and conditions of the Defendant’s release, and for the reasons stated in his May 23, 2011, Motion to Vacate the Order, the Defendant herein provides his intention to go forward upon the Motion to Vacate Order at his court appearance on June 24, 2011. Although June 24, 2011, is scheduled as a status date, the failure of the state to file a “Motion for a Permanent Condition” and the absence of any interim hearing between May 23, 2011, and June 24, 2011, on the Motion to Vacate the Order the Defendant demands that a hearing proceed on June 24, 2011, or that the “temporary” order be dissolved in consideration of the state’s failure to file the “Motion for a Permanent Condition.”

DEFENDANT

DUANE T. DOUTEL

BY: /s/ Rachel M. Baird
Rachel M. Baird (CT Juris #407222)
Law Office of Rachel M. Baird
379 Prospect Street
Torrington CT 06790-5238
Tel: (860) 626-9991
Fax: (860) 626-9992


ORDER

The foregoing motion having been duly heard, it is hereby,


GRANTED/DENIED.

BY THE COURT

_________________________________

Judge/Clerk of the Superior Court


CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-14, I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing motion
above was served by first-class mail, postage paid, hand-delivered on June 20, 2011, to counsel
of record as follows next:
Office of the State’s Attorney
17 Belden Ave
Norwalk CT 06850-3303
/s/ Rachel M. Baird
Rachel M. Baird

Commissioner of the Superior Court
 

DDoutel

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
101
Location
Connecticut
Good luck Mr. Doutel on your court appearance on the 24th. I think you will do well.

Thanks, Rich; call me Duane, please. I only make cops and bureaucrats call me Mr. Doutel! :D it will depend on whether the judge rules on his personal pereferences or on the law; it's clear to me that he has a problem with keeping his word, so not at all sure he's entitled to the honorific "his honor"...

Personally, I think he'll be pissed as hell that Rachel's going after this like a pitbull, which is how I indicated I'd like her to do things. Wouldn't know what to do without her!

Duane
 

DDoutel

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
101
Location
Connecticut
The crazy thing about this entire case is the sad fact that the Police ACTUALLY think they are right and that they are working within the confines of the law.... Not to mention the Judge who completely disregarded the constitution and rule of law by issuing that retarded temporary ruling. I just can't seem to fathom how people who are required to follow and uphold the law can disregard it whenever they see fit and continue to get away with it.
I guarantee you that even when you win this case and the charges are dropped and your firearms returned that as far as the judge is concerned you will have changed nothing. He will turn around and do the same thing to the next person that comes before his bench because he assumes that he can do whatever he wants because he wears a black robe and sits on the bench.

There needs to be real consequences to the police and judges and indeed even DA's that break laws, bend statutes to their needs or ignore fundamental constitutional rights.

The arresting officer should be fired and the rest of them that participated in the illegal search should be reprimanded and suspended without pay. Where is the common sense? where is the Due Process? Where is the justification?

I'm thoroughly disgusted with the justice system these days and I don't see any indications that it is going to get any better. It's only getting worse. I hope you take them for everything they have. I would sue all parties involved just to make a point.

Votes have consequences... :)
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
And Norwalk Police Never took the time to respond!!!!

Law Office of Rachel M. Baird
Stonegate Professional Building
379 Prospect Street
Torrington CT 06790-5238
Tel: 860.626.9991/Fax: 860.626.9992 Rachel M. Baird, Attorney
Toll free: 866.279.6402 Web: RachelBairdLaw.com

May 15, 2011

Harry W. Rilling, Chief
Norwalk Police Department
1 Monroe St
Norwalk CT 06854

Re: Return of Seized Property – Norwalk Police Department Case #11-7963

Dear Chief Rilling:

I represent (Redacted Name (“Mrs. Redacted”) regarding the seizure of her firearms by members of your department, absent warrant or other justification, on February 16, 2011.

This letter is a demand for the return of the personal property lawfully owned by Mrs. Redacted and in your custody, including: (List of 1-4 firearms is redacted); and (5) Bag, Case, and Rifle Slug.

Please contact my office to secure arrangements for the return of Mrs. Redacted’s above stated personal property. Mrs. Redacted holds a valid state permit.

Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to this matter. The seizure of Mrs. Redacted’s firearms has denied her security in her home and the right to defend her family.

As the Department of Public Safety will confirm, Mrs. Redacted obtained a state permit immediately following the home invasion, sexual assaults, and murders in Cheshire due to concerns about protecting her home and family.

Any communications regarding this matter until its resolution shall be directed to this office.

Sincerely,

Rachel M. Baird, Attorney
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
Norwalk court schedules "FULL" hearing for june 30th at 2pm

The scheduled hearing in this matter may be the best free entertainment available in Norwalk, CT on the afternoon of June 30th.

Here is what's going on:

The court after a motion filed by Attorney Rachel M. Baird has scheduled the promised "FULL" hearing on the conditions placed on Duane Doutel that he not apply for a new Permit to Carry or possess firearms.

Thirteen (13), subpoenas have been issued to members of the Norwalk Police Department, DPS Special Licensing and Firearms Unit and the Doctor's office where Mr. Doutel is alleged to have committed the crime of Threatening in the Second Degree.

It is also known that a Federal Civil Case will be filed very shortly in behalf of what I am now calling the "Virgin Victim".

Duane Doutel's wife, who holds a Connecticut Permit to Carry, did nothing wrong to justify the seizure and confiscation of her firearms by members of the Norwalk Police Department. Mrs. Doutel had at the time, a core Second Amendment right to KEEP and BEAR her firearms, (IN HER HOME), regardless of what her husband may or may not have done.

My personal belief is that this case and these facts have far reaching implications for every individual who owns or possesses firearms, particularly IN THE HOME.

STAY TUNED TO THIS ISSUE, MORE WILL BE POSTED IN THE NEAR FUTURE!!
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
Looking at Norwalk's permit application, it's really not shocking.

Their own application violates many laws/acts. Asks about tons of insane information like:

handicap issues
dental info
all fingers/toes
manner of dress (isn't that profiling?)
neat or unkempt
speaks with accent

Amongst many other things.

I posted the app on ctpistolpermitissues.com for those that may be interested.

Norwalk is absolutely INSANE!

Jonathan
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
The hearing date may change

The Norwalk court is going to set the date for a hearing today.

The June 30th date was going to be changed to July 7th and Attorney Baird objected.

Look for a new date for the hearing to be posted here in the next couple of days.
 

djn777

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
12
Location
Norwalk, CT
norwalk resident

i will have to say i had no issues with getting my permit as a norwalk resident. it was processed in a timely manner and they were very friendly
 

djn777

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
12
Location
Norwalk, CT
norwalk info

i have nothing to compare it to so i did not think it was too much info. i have no problem with them making sure i am who i am. as a person who had hair and is now bald and has a beard and then doesn't i didn't mind filling out a few questions.
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
i have nothing to compare it to so i did not think it was too much info. i have no problem with them making sure i am who i am. as a person who had hair and is now bald and has a beard and then doesn't i didn't mind filling out a few questions.

I don't understand. They will know who you are by the state application, which is the only thing the statutes allow for.

Why would they need to know of tattoos, amputations, skin color and such?

Kix would know better than I do about Norwalk, but I imagine they are also one of the towns that 'requires' a rap sheet waiver, etc.

Why would we be ok with local LEOs making up rules and laws that supersede state laws?
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
‘Oh, that’s only on TV; we only have to do that if we question you.’ Yep, that's what the Miranda warning is for.

Yeah. Why bother with the little things like "you have the right to an attorney." Remember, this didn't take place in the US. In the Gulag, rights are just a minor annoyance to the Gestapo.
 

cco2010

New member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
3
Location
, ,
Looking at Norwalk's permit application, it's really not shocking.

Their own application violates many laws/acts. Asks about tons of insane information like:

handicap issues
dental info
all fingers/toes
manner of dress (isn't that profiling?)
neat or unkempt
speaks with accent

Amongst many other things.

I posted the app on ctpistolpermitissues.com for those that may be interested.

Norwalk is absolutely INSANE!

Jonathan

Neat or Unkempt: Depends if I have been working in the yard, or if I am taking my wife out on the town....
Speaks with an Accent: Every person who speaks has an accent...
Manner of dress: Left leg first, then right leg. Followed by belt, socks, shirt (head first, then arms)...is that what they are looking for?
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
Hair, teeth, accent, amputations, complexion, tattoos, scars and tons more.

Not required, why treat me like a criminal just because I am exercising a right.

If you feel comfortable filling that stuff out, fine. Personally, I don't see the need to fill out the same information that is gathered when someone is arrested just for exercising a right.

No waivers.

The BFPE didn't seem too thrilled with the paperwork either.

Jonathan
 
Top