Court overturns ‘Flying Gun’ convictions
Former CCSU student no longer faces all of his ’15 charges
A Connecticut man who became the subject of national news — and scrutiny from state and federal officials — after posting videos of his homemade drones armed with a gun and flamethrower had part of a 2015 conviction from runins with the police overturned by the Supreme Court this year, records show.
In an opinion published Tuesday in the Connecticut Law Journal, the appeals court found that police officers in Clinton lacked sufficient reason for stopping Austin Haughwout in a library parking lot in July 2015, beginning a series of events that led to Haughwout scuffling with officers later that month when he attempted to turn himself in on warrants.
The unanimous decision, which was handed down in July, threw out Haughwout’s convictions for interfering with a police officer and disobeying an officer’s orders in relation to the initial police stop in the library parking lot.
The court also reversed one of Haughwout’s two convictions for assaulting a police officer during the subsequent encounter at the Clinton Police Department and ordered a new trial on that charge.
Haughwout’s fourth conviction, also for assaulting a police officer while at the department, was allowed to stand.
Haughwout, who was 19 at the time of both incidents, was sentenced in 2019 to one year in jail and five years of probation on each of the assault charges, to be served concurrently.
Neither Haughwout’s attorney, Jennifer Bourn, nor the state’s attorney’s office responded to requests for comment.
The case began with Haughwout’s encounter with police on July 19, 2015, just days after he posted a video online of a drone firing a handgun several times in the woods, which soon gained millions of views and nationwide media attention.
According to the opinion written by Justice Maria Araujo Kahn, a police officer “immediately recognized” Haughwout upon stopping him in the parking lot of Henry Hull Carter Library after hours, where
the teen said he was attempting to access the free Wi-Fi from the library’s picnic benches.
After the officer told Haughwout to park his car, he allegedly drove off, only to be stopped by police again a short time later. At that point, police allowed him to leave while they sought an arrest warrant based on Haughwout’s actions.
When Haughwout went to the police station three days later to turn himself in on that warrant, he was filming with a small camera, according to the justice’s ruling.
Police initially told Haughwout to surrender the camera while he was
being booked, which he refused to do, the ruling noted. Police then had to physically restrain Haughwout when he attempted to leave the station, the ruling stated.
Officers described Haughwout as “flailing about” and “kicking” during the struggle, and later alleged that they sustained minor injuries, while the teen was taken to the hospital and released back to police custody.
Haughwout later posted footage of both encounters to his YouTube page.
As his criminal case progressed, other videos Haughwout posted to that
page, including one of a drone equipped with a flamethrower, attracted the attention of the Federal Aviation Administration, which launched an investigation that resulted in Haughwout and his father being ordered to turn over records to federal regulators.
The well-publicized videos also sparked a response from lawmakers in at least five states, who moved to ban weaponized drones. Plans to enact such a ban in Connecticut fell through during the 2016 legislative session.
Haughwout was also expelled from Central Connecticut
State University after posting the videos of his weaponized drones. The Connecticut Supreme Court previously ruled against Haughwout in a lawsuit seeking his reinstatement to the school.
In her opinion, which did not mention Haughwout’s drone videos or other legal troubles, Kahn wrote that police lacked cause for the initial stop and the teen’s “mere use of the library’s parking lot and picnic table at 9 p.m. on a Sunday evening cannot, in and of itself, give rise to a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity.”
Regarding his two assault convictions stemming from the second encounter with police, Khan found that the jury was not properly instructed on one of the charges, depriving Haughwout and his attorneys of their ability to mount a defense.
The court found no error on the second assault charge, against an officer who came to assist the arrest, and allowed that conviction to stand.
Prosecutors did not respond to questions Monday on whether they will seek to try Haughwout again on the assault charge. A probation review hearing in the case is scheduled for next week.