## Facts

- An anti-war demonstration occurred outside the Yale-in-China building in New Haven, Connecticut, protesting a Marine Corps recruiter’s presence on campus.
- The crowd grew to over 100 demonstrators; 10–15 plainclothes police officers, including Officer Peter D. Ematrudo, formed a line to maintain access to the building.
- As demonstrators tried to block entry, the scene escalated into physical confrontations between protesters and police.
- Karen Brudney, a former Yale student, alleged she was standing at the fringe of the crowd when Ematrudo, without warning or provocation, struck her on the head with a blackjack.
- A student witness supported Brudney’s account, describing the demonstration as peaceful and stating the officer swung his blackjack into the crowd.
- Ematrudo testified that a detective had been knocked down and was being assaulted by demonstrators; Ematrudo moved to assist.
- Ematrudo stated he gave a verbal warning to move back and, when ignored, used his blackjack in a controlled manner aimed at an attacker’s arm or shoulder.
- The court found the blackjack glancingly struck Brudney’s head before hitting the intended target and that Brudney’s injury was superficial and treated briefly at the Yale infirmary.
- Brudney sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asserted a pendent Connecticut assault-and-battery claim; after a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Ematrudo on all counts.

## Issues

1. Whether Ematrudo’s use of force during the demonstration constituted excessive force amounting to a constitutional deprivation actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether striking Brudney with a blackjack constituted assault and battery under Connecticut law, or whether the contact was justified and unintentional during reasonable efforts to subdue an assailant.

## Decision

- Judgment was entered for Ematrudo on the § 1983 claim and on the state-law assault-and-battery claim.
- The court found, based on credibility determinations, that Ematrudo was responding to an assault on a fellow officer, warned the crowd, and used limited force directed at an attacker.
- The court concluded the incident did not rise to the level of “police brutality” or force that “shocks the conscience” required for § 1983 liability under the governing standard applied.
- The court held there was no assault and battery because Ematrudo did not intend to strike Brudney and the force used was reasonable in the performance of his duties; Brudney was inadvertently struck during a justified intervention.

## Legal Principles

- Under the due process-based excessive-force standard applied, § 1983 liability requires force so egregious that it constitutes “police brutality” or conduct that “shocks the conscience,” not merely a mistaken or incidental use of force in a volatile encounter.
- Reasonableness of police force is assessed in context, including the immediacy of danger, whether warnings were given, and whether the force was limited and directed toward stopping an assault.
- For Connecticut assault and battery, liability generally requires intentional, unlawful contact; unintended contact occurring as a byproduct of reasonable and justified force directed at another may not satisfy the intent and unlawfulness elements.
- The extent of injury may serve as circumstantial evidence of the degree of force used and whether a strike was direct or glancing.

## Conclusion

The court rejected both federal and state claims after finding that the officer acted reasonably to protect another officer during a rapidly developing melee, gave a warning, used controlled force aimed at an assailant, and only inadvertently caused a minor injury to the plaintiff, which did not meet the constitutional threshold for § 1983 liability or the intent and unlawfulness required for assault and battery.


Brudney v. Ematrudo, 414 F. Supp. 1187 (D. Conn. 1976)