Court Dismisses Police Officer From Connecticut Malicious Prosecution Suit

One of the two police officers accused in the malicious prosecution of a Connecticut firefighter in 2021 has been dismissed from the suit. Steven Frischling filed suit against Montville Police Lieutenant David Radford II, Connecticut State Police Sergeant Albert Gosselin III, and the Town of Montville alleging he was wrongfully charged and maliciously prosecuted.

Frischling, a professional photographer and long-time firefighter, was serving in his capacity as the PIO for the Chesterfield Fire Company when he responded to a motor vehicle accident on February 7, 2021. He took several photos at the scene, and after ensuring that none of the photos depicted a recognizable image of a victim, posted them to the fire department’s Facebook page.

The Montville Police Department charged Frischling with two counts of violating Joshua’s Law, one for taking the photos and one for sharing them on Facebook. Despite the obvious fact that Frischling took the photos “in the performance of his … duties” as allowed by Joshua’s Law, and that he shared the photos “in the performance of his … duties” as allowed by Joshua’s Law, police and prosecutors refused to dismiss the charges for nearly 25 months. More on the initial arrest and the ultimate dismissal.

Frischling alleged that Radford had a personal vendetta against him due to some prior postings, and that Gosselin worked with Radford to secure the criminal charges by approving the arrest warrant despite knowing the allegations were baseless. The suit alleged false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil rights violations actionable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The US District Court for the District of Connecticut saw Gosselin’s involvement differently than Frischling alleged, concluding even if the allegations against Radford are true, all Gosselin did was sign the warrant application as a witness/notary, as opposed to approving it. Quoting from the decision:

• [T]he complaint … alleges that Gosselin “approved” the warrant application.
• [T]he warrant application… makes clear that Gosselin simply signed the warrant as a witness to Radford’s signing as the affiant.
• The warrant application includes no indication that Gosselin “approved” the application; rather, all it shows is that he signed it as a notary.
• [T]here are no factual allegations suggesting that Gosselin was Radford’s supervisor or otherwise in a position to “approve” the application.
• Frischling has not identified, nor has the Court’s research revealed, any authority that clearly establishes that Gosselin’s actions could make him liable for violating Frischling’s Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from false arrest.

The case will now proceed against the town and Radford. Here is a copy of the decision.