Thomas Breen photo
Protesters outside police HQ the week after Soulemane's death.
Mariyann Soulemane photo
Mubarak Soulemane (right), whom a state trooper killed in 2020, shown at his high school graduation in 2018.
More than two years and three months after state trooper Brian North shot and killed New Haven teenager Mubarak Soulemane, the state has wrapped up its investigation of the case — and has arrested and charged the law enforcement officer with one count of first-degree manslaughter.
Inspector General Robert J. Devlin, Jr. made that announcement in a Wednesday morning press release.
The press release states that North was released on a $50,000 bond and is expected to appear in Milford Superior Court on May 3.
The email announcement was also accompanied by a 133-page report that describes in detail the investigation that led to North’s arrest. Click here to read that report in full.
The charges stem from the shooting death of Soulemane, a 19-year-old Fair Haven resident and child of Ghanian immigrants, on Jan. 15, 2020.
That’s when state troopers engaged in a car chase with Soulemane up I‑95 while the New Havener was in the grip of an apparent schizophrenic episode.
“On January 15, 2020, at approximately 5:05 p.m. on Campbell Avenue, West Haven, Connecticut, after an extended pursuit on I‑95, Connecticut State Troopers Brian North, Joshua Jackson, and Ross Dalling successfully stopped a stolen 2012 Hyundai Sonata being operated by Mubarak Soulemane,” the introduction to the investigation reads.
“The troopers’ police vehicles effectively blocked-in the Hyundai. Shortly after the stop, Trooper North fired seven shots through the driver’s side window of the Hyundai. The bullets struck and killed Soulemane who was seated in the driver’s seat holding a knife.”
Ultimately, at the time that North fired his weapon, “neither he nor any other person was in imminent danger of serious injury or death from a knife attack at the hands of Soulemane,” Devlin’s report continues. “Further, any belief that persons were in such danger was not reasonable. I therefore find that North’s use of deadly force was not justified under Connecticut law.”
Click here, here, here and here to read more about Soulemane, this case, his family, and public protests in response to his death.
North's Side: "Imminent Risk"
The report goes into great detail on the events that preceded the car chase and the shooting: Soulemane’s apparently not taking his medication while his mom was out of the country; his getting in a fight with his brother and suddenly leaving home; his attempt to purchase, and then steal, a phone from an AT&T store in Norwalk; his subsequent theft of a Lyft driver’s car and high-speed flight, and police chase, up I‑95.
The report also quotes North at length to get his side of what happened at the time of the fatal shooting in West Haven.
“After multiple strikes of the baton on the window, I believe about five or six strikes, the window shattered,” North told investigators.
As soon as the window shattered, I saw the suspects eyes open wide. I also saw the West Haven Officer’s head had dropped below the roofline of the suspect vehicle, and it appeared to me that he was going to enter the car to remove the suspect. I know through my training and experience, when a suspect refuses to comply and law enforcement officers force entry into a vehicle through a window, the immediate response is to move in and pull out the suspect. The suspect quickly sat straight up in the driver’s seat.
As the West Haven Officer was trying to enter the suspect vehicle, the suspect quickly moved his right hand and went straight for his right front pants pocket. I heard someone yell out, “He’s reaching. He’s reaching.” I am unsure which officer on scene was the one yelling. At this moment, I remember thinking to myself, I do not want to shoot the suspect based only on furtive movement. The suspect continued to make furtive movements, was reaching into his right front pants pocket, appeared to be pulling something out, and quickly looked to his right in the direction of the West Haven Officer and Tpr. Jackson.
I immediately became concerned for the safety of both the West Haven Officer and Tpr. Jackson, as Tpr. Jackson only had his Taser out, and I did not believe that the West Haven Officer had his weapon drawn. At this point, I felt my field of vision narrow, focusing on watching the suspect’s hands. Immediately the suspect, using his right hand quickly removed a silver colored object from his right pants pocket. As the suspect raised his right hand from his right front pants pocket with the object still in it, I recognized the object the suspect removed from his pocket to be a fixed blade knife. The knife had a silver colored serrated blade that was approximately four inches long.
The suspect held the knife in his right hand, in a closed fist at a 90 degree angle with his body. The knife was held with the tip of the blade facing upwards towards the roof of the suspect vehicle, and the serrated edge facing towards the front of the vehicle in the direction of the front windshield. While the suspect held the knife in his right hand, he began to abruptly move in the driver’s seat. I quickly took my eyes off the suspect and looked in the direction of Tpr. Jackson and the West Haven Officer. I saw Tpr. Jackson quickly advancing towards the open passenger window and I could not see the West Haven Officer anymore. This led me to believe that the West Haven Officer had already begun to enter the suspect vehicle to take control of the suspect. I immediately looked back at the suspect and saw that he still had the knife in his hand, and was making furtive movements.
The suspect was moving and holding the knife in an aggressive manner, and appeared to me to be preparing to attack either Tpr. Jackson or the West Haven Officer. Based on these circumstances, I believed that Tpr. Jackson and the West Haven Officer were at imminent risk of serious physical injury or death, and could have been stabbed in the neck or face as they attempted to enter the vehicle and remove the suspect. As a result, I discharged my duty firearm to eliminate the threat.
I discharged my duty pistol, a Smith and Wesson M&P 2.0 9mm, several times aiming for center mass on the suspect in an effort to stop the threat. At the time, I was unsure how many times I had discharged my duty pistol. After discharging my firearm, I immediately activated my portable radio and Broadcast, “Shots fired.” I then looked into the suspect vehicle, and I could see the suspect was still moving. I then yelled, “He’s got the knife. Drop the knife. Drop the knife.” The driver’s side window was shattered. I crouched down to look through the hole in the shattered glass of the window. I then yelled out, “It’s out of his hands. It’s on his lap.” I could see the suspect was still moving at this time, but noticed the knife was now on his lap. Then I used my pistol to remove some glass so I could see clearly into the suspect vehicle.
36 Seconds
In the “Analysis” section of the investigatory report, Devlin lays out the facts of the case, and the reasoning that ultimately lead him to conclude that North should be arrested and charged.
“In the present case, North makes no claim that he used deadly force to defend himself from Soulemane’s use or imminent use of deadly force against him,” he wrote. “Nor could he. Soulemane was seated in the driver’s seat of the Hyundai. He could not open the driver’s door enough to exit because Jackson’s cruiser blocked him in. The car windows were all up. Even though he held a knife, he posed no imminent threat to North. North asserts, however, that he used deadly force in defense of third persons, namely Jackson and or Rappa.
“As an initial matter, it is important to note that, at the moment that North fired, neither Jackson nor Rappa faced any actual or imminent danger of deadly force being used against them. Soulemane was in the driver’s seat of the Hyundai and they were outside of the vehicle. Although he held a knife in his right hand, he was not using the knife against them nor presenting any imminent threat to do so.”
Devln notes that North’s immediate statements to supervisors 20 minutes after the shooting make no mention of his trying to protect fellow law enforcement officers Jackson and Rappa from harm.
“To the contrary, his immediate statements to Sergeants Kiely and Hennessey suggest that he fired when he saw Soulemane pull out the knife,” Devlin wrote.
Devlin also called into question the necessity to use deadly force at all in this situation.
“Once the police effectuated the stop,” he wrote, “they had control of the situation. It is fair to ask whether they disregarded less lethal options.”
He continued:
Jackson yelled for Soulemane to get out of the car twice as he approached the driver’s side of the Hyundai. There was no further communication with him before North discharged his weapon. Only thirty-six seconds elapsed between North taking a position next to the driver window and his firing his gun through that window. Would a reasonable officer have made further attempts to talk to Soulemane either himself or possibly waiting until an officer with crisis intervention training could respond? Rappa told Inspectors that he broke the window to communicate with Soulemane, and facilitate the use of less lethal means to gain control of him. A reasonable police officer would have realized that the police were in control of the situation and the opportunity existed to take a tactical pause to explore the use of methods other than deadly force.
North fired seven shots. Was that reasonable? It is certainly possible that one shot might have disabled Soulemane from attacking others yet not kill him. The law is clear that 20/20 hindsight is inappropriate in evaluating an officer’s conduct given the split second decisions officers must make in dangerous situations. The law is also clear, however, that the officer’s conduct must be reasonable to be justified.
In the present case, that standard of reasonableness was not met.
The conclusion is obvious to anyone (including laypeople) watching the dashcam video. So why did it take 27 months for authorities to reach this conclusion. That's the real story here.