Edward Peruta
Regular Member
TO EVERYONE THAT READS THIS MESSAGE BOARD:
I WOULD LIKE TO PUBLICLY THANK RICHARD BURGESS FOR HIS DECISON TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES AND INCIDENT THAT TOOK PLACE IN WALLINGFORD, CT ON MAY 16TH 2010.
WITHOUT INDIVIDUALS WHO CHALLENGE INAPPROPRIATE DETENTIONS AND ARRESTS WE ARE ALL AT RISK.
GIVEN THE FACT THAT RICHARD BURGESS ATTEMPTED UNSUCCESSFULLY TO ADDRESS THE MATTER WITH A CITIZEN'S COMPLAINT THIS CIVIL ACTION IS VERY APPROPRIATE.
HOPEFULLY HE AND HIS FEDERAL SUIT WILL RECEIVE THE SUPPORT OF THE FIREARM AND CIVIL RIGHTS COMMUNITY.
THE FOLLOWING FEDERAL COMPLAINT IS EXPECTED TO BE FILED TODAY, MONDAY JULY 18TH 2011.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUTI WOULD LIKE TO PUBLICLY THANK RICHARD BURGESS FOR HIS DECISON TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES AND INCIDENT THAT TOOK PLACE IN WALLINGFORD, CT ON MAY 16TH 2010.
WITHOUT INDIVIDUALS WHO CHALLENGE INAPPROPRIATE DETENTIONS AND ARRESTS WE ARE ALL AT RISK.
GIVEN THE FACT THAT RICHARD BURGESS ATTEMPTED UNSUCCESSFULLY TO ADDRESS THE MATTER WITH A CITIZEN'S COMPLAINT THIS CIVIL ACTION IS VERY APPROPRIATE.
HOPEFULLY HE AND HIS FEDERAL SUIT WILL RECEIVE THE SUPPORT OF THE FIREARM AND CIVIL RIGHTS COMMUNITY.
THE FOLLOWING FEDERAL COMPLAINT IS EXPECTED TO BE FILED TODAY, MONDAY JULY 18TH 2011.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
___________________________________________________
RICHARD E. BURGESS:
PLAINTIFF:
v.
TOWN OF WALLINGFORD;
CHIEF DOUGLASL. DORTENZIO, in his individual and official capacities;
LIEUTENANT ANTHONY MARTINO, In his individual and official capacities;
SERGEANT MICHAEL COLAVOLPE, in his individual and official capacities;
OFFICER GABRIEL GARCIA, in his individual capacity;
OFFICER DEVIN FLOOD, in his individual capacity;
and
MARK VANAMAN
DEFENDANTS :
___________________________________________________
EXPECTED TO BE FILED ON JULY 18, 2011
COMPLAINT
Introduction
1. This action arises from the false and malicious arrest of Plaintiff Richard E. Burgess for Disorderly
Conduct in the Town of Wallingford on May 16, 2010. This action is for money damages, attorneys’
fees and costs, as well as other relief available in law or equity arising from said wrongful acts.
The Parties
2. The Plaintiff Richard E. Burgess (“Burgess”) is a citizen of the State of Connecticut as provided under
Article first, § 15, of the constitution of Connecticut.
3. The Defendant Town of Wallingford (“Town”) is a municipality duly organized, incorporated, and
chartered under and pursuant to the laws of the State of Connecticut.
4. The Defendant Douglas L. Dortenzio (“Chief Dortenzio”), at all relevant times, was employed as the
Chief of the Town of Wallingford Department of Police Services and is sued in his official and
individual capacities.
5. The Defendant Anthony Martino (“Lieutenant Martino”), at all relevant times, was employed as a
Lieutenant of the Town of Wallingford Department of Police Services and is sued in his official and
individual capacities.
Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 1 of 10
6. The Defendant Michael Colavolpe (“Sergeant Colavolpe”), at all relevant times, was employed as aSergeant of the Town of Wallingford Department of Police Services and is sued in his official and
individual capacities.
7. The Defendant Devin Flood (“Officer Flood”), at all relevant times, was employed as a Police Officer of
the Town of Wallingford Department of Police Services and is sued in his individual capacity.
8. The Defendant Gabriel Garcia (“Officer Garcia”), at all relevant times, was employed as a Police
Officer of the Town of Wallingford Department of Police Services.
9. The Defendant Mark Vanaman (“Vanaman”) is an individual who, at all relevant times, resided in the
State of Connecticut.
Jurisdiction
10. The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut has subject matter jurisdiction over this
case under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the deprivation of
rights secured under the United States Constitution.
Factual Background
11. On May 16, 2010, the Plaintiff Richard Burgess (“Burgess”) went with his girlfriend to Yale Billiards,
located at 950 Yale Avenue in the Town of Wallingford, Connecticut.
12. At that time, Burgess was wearing a handgun visibly secured in a holster at his waist. Burgess
possessed a valid Connecticut pistol permit and the handgun was legally registered to him through the
Connecticut State Police.
13. That while Burgess was playing a game of billiards he was approached by the owner of the business,
Robert Hilton. Hilton initially asked Plaintiff to conceal his handgun, but after a conversation over the
legality of open carry he told Burgess to wait while he called the police to check if openly carrying a
firearm is legal.
14. As Hilton walked away from Burgess, Burgess was approached by a patron, Mark Vanaman. Vanaman
told Burgess to conceal his handgun or he would call the police. Burgess instructed Vanaman to leave
him alone and to feel free to call the police.
15. Based on Vanaman confronting Burgess, Hilton reapproached Burgess and they agreed that Burgess
would leave. Burgess advised Hilton that he would wait outside for the police to arrive and clear up the
issue of open carrying being legal.
16. Vanaman called the Wallingford Police Department and advised the dispatcher of a gentleman walking
around with his gun exposed with no badge. He told the dispatcher that the male was sitting outside in
front of Yale Billiards.
Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 2 of 10
17. Vanaman held a permit to carry a pistol or revolver on May 16, 2010, and for the twenty-four years priorto May 16, 2010, issued pursuant to Chapter 529 of the Connecticut General Statutes.
18. Vanaman held a license to engage in the business of a Bail Enforcement Agent on May 16, 2010, and
for the eight years prior to May 16, 2010, issued pursuant to Chapter 533A of the Connecticut General
Statutes.
19. Vanaman reported to the Wallingford Police Department that he felt threatened by Burgess’ open carry
of a pistol.
20. The open carry of a pistol in Connecticut by one holding a valid Connecticut pistol permit on premises
where the carrying of a pistol is not otherwise prohibited is lawful conduct.
21. Yale Billiards provided no notice that the possession of a pistol on its premises was prohibited by the
premises owner.
22. Hilton called the Wallingford Police Department stating that a gentleman was in Yale Billiards with an
exposed gun, just carrying it. Hilton approached the man and was told by the man that it was legal.
Hilton told the dispatcher that one of the customers made a scene about it, so he asked the man to leave.
23. The Wallingford Police Department dispatcher dispatched Sergeant Colavolpe, Officer Michael Fraenza,
Officer Abel Gonzalez, Officer Garcia, and Officer Flood.
24. Sergeant Colavolpe, Officer Garcia, and Officer Flood approached Burgess, who was seated on the
bench outside Yale Billiards with his handgun clearly visible in a holster on his belt with two additional
magazines.
25. Sergeant Colavolpe immediately seized Burgess’ firearm by physically removing it from the holster.
26. Officer Garcia then immediately placed Burgess in handcuffs.
27. Burgess questioned the reason he was being arrested and was informed Breach of Peace. Burgess and
Officer Flood and Officer Garcia and Sergeant Colavolpe entered into a discussion regarding openly
carrying his firearm and Burgess attempted to show the three officers a pamphlet on the bench where he
had been seated entitled “Is that legal? A guide to understanding your CT gun rights.”
28. Officer Flood confirmed that Burgess had a valid Connecticut pistol permit in his possession.
29. Officer Flood verified through the Connecticut State Police Message Center that the handgun was not
stolen and that it was legally registered to Burgess.
Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 3 of 10
30. Sergeant Colavolpe telephoned the Wallingford Police Department and spoke with Lieutenant Martinoasking if Lieutenant Martino was familiar with carrying handguns and if “they amended the statute so
you’re able to open carry in public?”
31. During their conversation Lieutenant Martino replied, “I don’t know anything about that,” and further
went on to say “it’s a concealed weapons permit.”
32. Lieutenant Martino told Sergeant Colavolpe to wait while he looked at a pistol permit application and
then continued the conversation by stating, “Wright said there was something in the legislature about
some guy, some NRA attorney that wanted to argue this statute. It says, it’s saying that it doesn’t say it
has to be concealed, it says you have to have a permit to carry, and I guess he, I guess he won the
argument. The problem is, and like the idea with Bill Wright is, just because it’s, just because they may
interpret it that way doesn’t mean you can walk into a bar with your gun out and then refuse to conceal it
and then walk around outside with your gun out. So we need to charge, we need to charge him with the
breach.”
33. Sergeant Colavolpe acknowledged that with “Absolutely, he’s already under arrest for breach.”
34. Lieutenant Martino further went on to say: “Take it a step further and maybe come back in and call uh,
the state police and maybe talk to one of the guys in the know there.”
35. After a brief exchange, the conversation ended with Lieutenant Martino stating “Always fun and
games,” with Sergeant Colavolpe replying “oh yeah.”
36. Officer Garcia removed the two ammunition magazines and placed Burgess into a police cruiser.
Burgess was then transported to the Wallingford Police Department where he was processed and
charged with Disorderly Conduct.
37. Burgess made several requests to file a complaint against the individual that had approached him and
actually created the disorderly conduct (later identified as Mark Vanaman). Those requests were denied
by Lieutenant Martino.
38. Lieutenant Martino told Burgess that “based on the circumstances” the Wallingford Police Department
would not take a statement from him.
39. On May 17, 2010 at 9:30 am Burgess contacted the Wallingford Police Department to make a formal
complaint involving his arrest.
40. On May 17, 2010 at 5:00 pm Officer Flood went to the Yale Billiards and met with the owner to review
the video surveillance. It was claimed that the owner had mistakenly recorded over the film
documenting the incident.
Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 4 of 10
41. Chief Dortenzio assigned Lieutenant Martino to investigate Burgess’ complaint despite LieutenantMartino’s personal involvement in the incident.
42. Lieutenant Martino interviewed Burgess regarding Burgess’ complaint, after which Burgess contacted
Chief Dortenzio advising him that he did not understand how one of the officers he complained about
could be the one investigating his complaint.
43. Chief Dortenzio refused to remove Lieutenant Martino from the investigation.
44. Lieutenant Martino completed his internal investigation, finding no wrongdoing, omitting his personal
involvement in the incident and his telephone conversation with Sergeant Colavolpe regarding the
legality of openly carrying handguns.
45. Chief Dortenzio approved Lieutenant Martino’s report findings despite his knowledge of Lieutenant
Martino’s personal involvement.
46. On May 25, 2010 the charge of Disorderly Conduct was dismissed based on the recommendation of the
Prosecutor advising the Judge a reason of “No Probable Cause.”
COUNT ONE:
UNLAWFUL ARREST, AND UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF
PROPERTY AND PERSON, IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION,
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (AGAINST SERGEANT MICHAEL COLAVOLPE, in his
individual and official capacities; OFFICER DEVIN FLOOD, in his individual
capacity; and OFFICER GABRIEL GARCIA, in his individual capacity)
47. Paragraphs 1-46 are hereby incorporated by reference as pleaded under Count One.
48. On May 16, 2010, Sergeant Colavolpe, acting under color of law, seized Burgess’ property and person.
49. In arresting Burgess on May 16, 2010, in confiscating property in Burgess’ possession, and in seizing
his person, Sergeant Colavolpe’s actions were objectively unreasonable.
50. Moreover, in so acting, Sergeant Colavolpe failed to follow applicable laws and procedures.
51. Sergeant Colavolpe lacked probable cause to arrest Burgess on May 16, 2010.
52. Sergeant Colavolpe’s unlawful seizure of Burgess’s person and property in his possession were the
proximate cause of the injury, damages, loss and harm sustained by Burgess.
53. On May 16, 2010, Officer Garcia, acting under color of law, seized Burgess’ property and person.
Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 5 of 10
54. In arresting Burgess on May 16, 2010, in confiscating property in Burgess’ possession, and in seizinghis person, Officer Garcia’s actions were objectively unreasonable.
55. Moreover, in so acting, Officer Garcia failed to follow applicable laws and procedures
56. Officer Garcia lacked probable cause to arrest Burgess on May 16, 2010.
57. Officer Garcia’s unlawful seizure of Burgess’ person and property in his possession were the proximate
cause of the injury, damages, loss and harm sustained by Burgess.
58. On May 16, 2010, Officer Flood, acting under color of law, seized Burgess’ property and person.
59. In arresting Burgess on May 16, 2010, in confiscating property in Burgess’ possession, and in seizing
his person, Officer Flood’s actions were objectively unreasonable.
60. Moreover, in so acting, Officer Flood failed to follow applicable laws and procedures
61. Officer Flood lacked probable cause to arrest Burgess on May 16, 2010.
62. Officer Flood’s unlawful seizure of Burgess’ person and property in his possession were the proximate
cause of the injury, damages, loss and harm sustained by Burgess.
COUNT TWO:
FALSE ARREST AND UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE DUE TO
FAILURE TO TRAIN (AGAINST THE TOWN OF WALLINGFORD)
63. Paragraphs 1-46 are hereby incorporated by reference as pleaded under Count Two.
64. Burgess was injured and sustained loss of property as a result of the Defendant Town of Wallingford’s
failure to train its police officers to investigate and charge individuals with Disorderly Conduct and
failed to train its police officers in the laws pertaining to the carrying of firearms in Connecticut.
65. As a result of the Town’s failure to adequately train its officers, Burgess was arrested without probable
cause.
66. The Towns’ failure to provide adequate and proper training of its officers was cause of Burgess’
injuries, losses, and harms.
67. That this lack of training was evidenced by the telephone conversation between Sergeant Colavolpe and
Lieutenant Martino.
68. That this lack of training was further evidenced through the fact that Chief Dortenzio approved the
findings of Lieutenant Martino’s review of the incident.
Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 6 of 10
69. As a result of the Town’s conduct, Burgess has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, includinginjury to his personal and professional reputations, mental anguish, physical and emotional distress,
humiliation and embarrassment.
COUNT THREE:
DEPRIVATION OF PLAINTIFF’S FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN VIOLATION OF
THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (AGAINST THE TOWN OF
WALLINGFORD; CHIEF DOUGLAS L. DORTENZIO, in his individual and
official capacities; LIEUTENANT ANTHONY MARTINO, in his individual and
official capacities; SERGEANT MICHAEL COLAVOLPE, in his individual and
official capacities; OFFICER DEVIN FLOOD, in his individual capacity; and
OFFICER GABRIEL GARCIA, in his individual capacity)
70. Paragraphs 1-46 are hereby incorporated by reference as pleaded under Count Three.
71. Burgess’ act of openly carrying a holstered handgun on May 16, 2010, was an act of symbolic
expression designed and calculated to raise public awareness of an individual’s right to openly carry a
handgun.
72. Burgess’ act of wearing a tee shirt expressing his Second Amendment freedom and passing out open
carry literature further emphasizes his desire to express his views to raise public awareness of an
individual’s right to openly carry a handgun.
73. The Defendants’ unlawful seizure of Burgess’ person and property in his possession prevented Burgess
from exercising his freedom of speech by expressive or symbolic conduct.
74. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Burgess has suffered and will continue to suffer damages.
COUNT FOUR:
DEPRIVATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IN
VIOLATION OF THE SECOND AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (AGAINST THE
TOWN OF WALLINGFORD; CHIEF DOUGLAS L. DORTENZIO, in his
individual and official capacities; LIEUTENANT ANTHONY MARTINO, in his
individual and official capacities; SERGEANT MICHAEL COLAVOLPE, in his
individual and official capacities; OFFICER DEVIN FLOOD, in his individual
capacity; and OFFICER GABRIEL GARCIA, in his individual capacity)
75. Paragraphs 1-46 are hereby incorporated by reference as pleaded under Count Four.
76. Burgess’ actions on May 16, 2010 were lawful in that he possessed a valid Connecticut pistol permit, the
handgun he had secured in the holster on his hip was registered to him, and he was in a place that he
could lawfully carry a handgun.
Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 7 of 10
77. The Defendants’ actions were premeditated and calculated to deprive Burgess of his right to openlycarry a handgun as evidenced by Chief Dortenzio’s quote in The Bristol Press dated April 10, 2010
speaking of a movement to allow handguns on college campuses when he stated that “We’re concerned
about this movement and how they are testing the waters to carry anywhere.”
78. The Defendants’ actions unlawfully deprived Burgess of his right to openly carry a handgun under the
Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
79. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Burgess has suffered and will continue to suffer damages.
COUNT FIVE:
DEPRIVATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONNECTICUT CONSTITUTION, CONN. CONST.,
ART. I, § 15 (AGAINST THE TOWN OF WALLINGFORD; CHIEF DOUGLAS L.
DORTENZIO, in his individual and official capacities; LIEUTENANT ANTHONY
MARTINO, in his individual and official capacities; SERGEANT MICHAEL
COLAVOLPE, in his individual and official capacities; OFFICER DEVIN FLOOD,
in his individual capacity; and OFFICER GABRIEL GARCIA, in his individual
capacity.
80. Paragraphs 1-46 are hereby incorporated by reference as pleaded under Count Five.
81. Burgess’ actions on May 16, 2010 were lawful in that he possessed a valid Connecticut pistol permit, the
handgun he had secured in the holster on his hip was register to him, and he was in a place that he could
lawfully carry a handgun.
82. The Defendants’ actions were premeditated and calculated to deprive Burgess of his right to openly
carry a handgun as evidenced by Chief Dortenzio’s commentary in The Bristol Press dated April 10,
2010, about a movement to allow handguns on college campuses where he stated: “We’re concerned
about this movement and how they are testing the waters to carry anywhere.”
83. The Defendants’ actions unlawfully deprived Burgess of his right to openly carry a handgun under
Article first, § 15, of the Connecticut Constitution.
COUNT SIX:
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (AGAINST MARK VANAMAN)
84. Paragraphs 1-46 are hereby incorporated by reference as pleaded under Count Six.
85. Vanaman falsely reported an incident on May 16, 2010, to the Wallingford Police Department.
86. Vanaman lacked a reasonable, good faith belief in the facts he alleged and in the validity of the claims
he asserted to the Wallingford Police Department.
87. Vanaman knew he lacked a good faith belief when he told the Wallingford Police Department that the
lawful act of openly carrying a pistol constituted a threat upon his person.
Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 8 of 10
88. Vanaman engaged in the malicious prosecution of Burgess on May 16, 2010.89. Burgess was unlawfully arrested and taken into custody.
90. The criminal case against Burgess resolved in his favor when the charge arising from the May 16, 2010,
arrest was dismissed on May 25, 2010.
91. Vanaman authorized, encouraged, directed or assisted the Wallingford Police Department in performing
an unlawful act.
92. The restraint, detention, confinement, arrest, and prosecution caused Burgess to suffer injury, damages,
loss and harm.
Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 9 of 10
DEMAND FOR RELIEFWHEREFORE, the Plaintiff claims:
1. Compensatory damages, including damages for physical injury, emotional distress and harm to
reputation;
2. Punitive damages;
3. Interest and costs;
4. Attorneys’ fees;
5. Such other relief as in law or equity may pertain.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
PLAINTIFF
RICHARD E. BURGESS
BY: /s/ Rachel M. Baird
CT Fed Bar #12131
Law Office of Rachel M. Baird
379 Prospect Street
Torrington CT 06790-5238
Tel: (860) 626-9991
Fax: (860) 626-9992
Email: rbaird@rachelbairdlaw.com
Douglas A. Hall, Attorney
CT Fed Bar #29687
379 Prospect Street
Torrington CT 06790-5238
Email: attyhall@attydouglashall.com
His Attorneys
Case 3:11-cv-01129 Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 10 of 10
Last edited:
