The scene of the shooting off Ridgebury Road last May. —Thomas B. Nash photo
State police have handed off their report from a May 2013 officer-involved shooting that left a Ridgefield man dead to the state’s attorney for review.
State’s attorney Stephen Sedensky is reviewing an open state police investigation into the shooting of John Valluzzo inside his Ridgebury Road home on May 24.
It would be the state’s attorney’s role to determine whether there will be any charges against any police officers as a result of the shooting.
“The state’s attorney will review our report — it’s not closed yet,” said state police Lt. Paul Vance. “They may ask us to check into something before we finish the investigation and make it public.”
Officer Jorge Romero, who fired the shots, was put on paid leave after the incident, but returned to active duty Aug. 16.
Mr. Sedensky did not return multiple calls Tuesday morning.
Mr. Valluzzo was shot when police responded to domestic disturbance at his house.
The state police’s search warrant application for the house alleged that Mr. Valluzzo, 75, was shot twice after police saw him “walking upright and advancing towards them,” while holding a stainless steel revolver in one of his hands.
According to the document, four Ridgefield police officers responded to the scene of a domestic dispute and Officer Romero fired the fatal shots, hitting Mr. Valluzzo in his torso.
“Immediately recognizing that Valluzzo was armed with a handgun, Officer Romero ordered Valluzzo at least twice to drop the weapon,” the affidavit reads. “Valluzzo failed to drop the weapon and approached to within fifteen feet of the officer.”
The application, filed by state detectives John Kimball and Bill Flynn, says that Mr. Valluzzo did not appear to fire any shots.
Danbury attorney Andrew J. Buzzi filed a notice of intent to sue the town in October on behalf of Mr. Valluzzo’s estate.
The lawsuit claims that the conduct of the officers failed to follow departmental procedures pertaining to domestic violence calls, use of weapons, and situations involving entry onto premises.
It also claims that the conduct of the officers was done without warning and that they used excessive force.
“Additionally, Officer Romero was not psychologically fit for patrol duty and Chief Roche should not have permitted him to engage in anything other than administrative duties,” the lawsuit reads.
Officer Romero was put back on duty in August.
Police said at that time that they did not need to wait for the investigation to conclude.
“He’s not under investigation, the incident is still under investigation,” Capt. Tom Comstock said at the time.