Andrew Hull v. Town of Newtown

Summary

This dissent rejects the majority's conclusion that Newtown's arrest policy applied only to criminal arrests. It would interpret the policy's definition of arrest as covering anyone taken into custody, including a person held for involuntary psychiatric examination, and would therefore require a mandatory search. Because this is a dissent, it states no controlling holding; EVELEIGH, J., would reverse the summary judgment for the town and remand for further proceedings.