A Griswold resident is suing several Connecticut State Police (CSP) officers and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) over allegations they falsely arrested him after discovering he had a “personal relationship” with one of the trooper’s wives.
Chad Politowitz recently filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut against troopers Kristofer Fisher, Liam Flanagan, and DESPP after he claims he was falsely arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) after Fisher became aware Politowitz “was involved in a personal relationship” with his wife.
Politowitz claims that after Fisher discovered that relationship, he “engaged in a pattern of hostile, threatening, and intimidating conduct” against him, including threatening to kill him.
The complaint was filed in Connecticut District Court on March 27.
According to the complaint, Politowitz was detained at a traffic stop after he left the Jacques Cartier Club in Jewett City on April 23, 2024. He alleges that Fisher was “lurking” outside of the club, waiting to pull him over when he left.
During the traffic stop, which the complaint alleges Fisher made from his private vehicle, Poliwitz also claims Fisher failed to identify himself and handcuffed him before conducting a field sobriety test, and before contacting CSP Troop E for backup. Flanagan then conducted an investigation, which the complaint alleges would not have occurred if not for Fisher’s “unauthorized surveillance, pursuit, and traffic stop.” Politowitz denied that he was intoxicated at the time of the traffic stop.
Politowitz was charged, and the case was later dropped by the state. Politowitz also alleges that a newspaper article that appeared in The Day containing the details of the charges caused him “public embarrassment, reputational harm, and stigma within his committee” and was a “foreseeable consequence” of Fisher and Flanagan’s actions.
Politowitz further alleges that his license was administratively suspended and that he was required to install an ignition interlock device in his vehicle before the charges were dismissed.
The complaint alleges that Fisher began threatening Politowitz after he discovered a “personal relationship” between Politowitz and his wife.
“On one or more occasions, Defendant Fisher told [Politowitz] to kill himself.” the complaint states. It also claims Fisher threatened to kill Politowitz directly and texted Politowitz that he had put a “hit” out on him.
According to the complaint, Fisher’s alleged behavior was investigated by CSP’s Internal Affairs Unit and he was given a 29-day unpaid suspension.
“The sustained policy violations confirm Defendant Fisher’s conduct was unauthorized, improper, and outside accepted law enforcement standards.” the complaint states.
The complaint lists 16 counts, including unlawful seizure of abuse and authority, negligence, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and claims that both troopers violated Fisher’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving him of liberty without due process.
The unlawful seizure and abuse charges also allege Fisher’s and Flanagan’s actions violated Politowitz’s Fourth Amendment rights.
“Defendant Fisher abused his position of authority to initiate a traffic stop motivated by personal animus.” the complaint alleges. It claims his DUI arrest was unsupported by probable cause, constituting an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
The complaint also charges the CSP with maintaining customs that allowed officers to abuse their authority while off duty and maintains they should have known the harm Politowitz is alleging was the likely result. It also charges CSP with defamation and inflicting emotional distress, claiming Politowitz is now afraid of police in his own town and that there might be a “hit” out on him.
Politowitz is seeking punitive and compensatory damages, as well as recovery of attorney’s fees, and any other relief the court deems proper.
A standing protective order has also been issued by the court in the case, allowing certain documents to be confidential by the party that produces them.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
