Free Description not available - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

_ ` ase 3:03-cv-O10€;8—N?’CD Document 61 Filed O9/E7/%OO4 Paget of FFF
’ N T?'?‘ N

UNITED STATES msrrucr coU1;T’ A ·‘
msrmcr or CONNECTICUT `N N N ·~=e— A '-
CLIFTON s. FREEDMAN, ¤
Plaintiff, : N
v. Q crvns ACTION N
; No. 3:0:; CVl048(PCD)
AMEmcA ONLINE, mc, ET AL ;
Defendants. : JUNE 15, 2004
Morrow Eos PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Rule 56 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rul 9(c), N
T T T T N
the Defendants, the Town of Fairfield, Wllllam Young and David Bensey, mo e for N
T N
partial summary judgment as to Counts Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine and Ele en of
the Complaint. Specifically, the Defendants assert with regard to Count Four t N= the
plaintiff did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his sub riber
T T T T I A
1nformat1on and the defendants cannot be held to have violated his Fourth Ame N ent
T T T T T N
rights. With regard to Count Five and Six of the Complaint, the defendants ass that
they are entitled to summary judgment as the plaintiffs First Amendment right Na free N
N T
speech does not preempt the defendants’ compelling interest in investigating a po ential
T T T N t
treat of physical harm to several of its residents. The defendants next move for su mary
judgment as to the Seventh Count of the Complaint, on the basis that the plaintiff •N d not
have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his subscriber mformatio T The N
defendants move for stunmary judgment as to the Eight Count of the Complaint, Nt the
information obtained by the defendants and recorded in the police report · s of N
N
N N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

ase 3:03-cv-O1O68YI?CD Document 61 Filed O9/#@004 Page 2 of
I
legitimate public concern. With regard to the Ninth Count of the Complai , the I
defendant asserts it is entitled to summary judgment as there is no evidence to supp rt the
plaintiff claim that the Town failed to train its officers evidencing a del` erate I
I
indifference to the rights of the residence and visitors to the Town of Fairfield. F ally,
the defendants move for summary judgment as to the Eleventh Count of the Co laint
on the basis that there is no genuine issue of material of fact in dispute as to the f t that I
U the Town did not have a policy that directed it officers to submit search and izure I
warrant applications to internet service providers without first obtaining a j dge’s
I
signature.
A Local Rule 9(c)(l) Statement of Undisputed facts, a Memorandum of w in I
support of this motion, supporting affidavits, and depositions are attached here and
made a part hereof
TI-IE DEFENDANTS:
TOWN OF FAIRFIELD, I
DETECTIVE WILLIAM YOUNG, I
DETECTIVE DAVID BENSEY I
I
By: j \; , Q; Q/;
Mark A. Perkins (ct2241 9) I
Maher and Murtha, LLC I
528 Clinton Avenue ·
P.O. Box 901
Bridgeport, CT 06601
Telephone: (203) 367-2700
Facsimile: (203) 335-0589 I

ase 3:03-cv-O10€SlPCD Document 61 Filed O9/UYZOO4 Page 3 of
L ___/ __,/ _
I
l
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by first class mai
postage prepaid, this 15th day of June, 2004 to the following: ;
Daniel]. Klau, Esq. (ctl 7957)
H. James Pickerstein (ct05094) l
Calvin K. Woo (ct2495l) i
Pepe & Hazard LLP
Goodwin Square
225 Asylum Street I
Hartford, CT 06103-4302
Robert Y. Altchiler (ct24247)
The Law Offices of Robert Y. Altchiler E
590 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
!
I
Mark A. Perkins I I

l
l
l
l