AGO 1990-043.
Court | Connecticut |
Connecticut Attorney General Opinions
1990.
AGO 1990-043.
1990Opinion No. 1990-043Chairman John F. HealyConnecticut Department of
Liquor Control165 Capitol AvenueHartford, CT
06106Dear Chairman Healy:
This is in response to your recent request for an opinion on the
self-defense rights of liquor control agents. Specifically, you ask whether
self-defense rights are greater if exercised in the "workplace", and you ask us
for a definition of the workplace for agents.
We note, at the outset, that liquor control agents are primarily
responsible for inspecting permit premises and reporting their observations to
the Department of Liquor Control for administrative action following hearing,
if necessary. See Conn. Gen. Stat. e§30-55; Regs. Conn. State Agencies,
Liq. Cont., e§30-6-F2. Agents do not have arrest powers, and they are not
authorized to exercise force in the normal course of their inspection duties.
See 84 Conn. Op. Atty. Gen. 312, 315 (1984)(copy attached). On the other hand,
the Department is specifically authorized to call upon state and municipal
police to assist it in the performance of its functions. Conn. Gen. Stat.
e§30-6(a). Obviously, police are better staffed, equipped and trained to
handle situations where force may be necessary, whether in self-defense or
otherwise. Thus, the Department may find it appropriate to call upon police
whenever the need for force can be anticipated or is confronted. Nevertheless,
we provide the following in response to your request for opinion for those
hopefully rare situations where an agent may be compelled to act in
self-defense.
In a previous opinion, we advised that an agent, like any private
person, is justified in using force in self-defense whenever he or she acts on
the reasonable belief that the attacker intends to do bodily harm. The measure
of force allowable, and the circumstances under which it may be exercised, were
generally set forth in guideline form in that opinion. See, generally, 84 Conn.
Op. Atty. Gen. at 321-28. There we noted that the right of self-defense is
generally qualified by a duty to retreat, if it is safe to do so, prior to
using force in self-defense. Id. Your instant question is relevant to and
focuses upon the applicability of the duty to retreat rule to assaults in the
workplace.
In your request, you indicate that agents most often work at
Department offices in Hartford, in the field inspecting permit premises
throughout the State, and at their home-offices. As this opinion will show, all
of these may be considered an agent's workplace.
As we cautioned in our earlier opinion, each factual situation
encountered by an agent in the course of duty is unique. Advice appropriate in
one fact setting may...
To continue reading
Request your trial