Connecticut’s Primary or Dominant-Aggressor Law: Why Dual Arrests Still Happen—And What to Do if It Happens to You

A night that starts with a heated argument shouldn’t end with both people in handcuffs—especially when the person who called 911 is trying to get help. Connecticut changed the law in 2019 to fix this exact problem. In Domestic violence cases, the police are supposed to identify the primary- or dominant-aggressor and arrest that person, not both. But in the real world, dual arrests still happen far too often.

As a Stamford domestic violence defense lawyer, I see it every week: officers separate everyone, take two competing stories, feel the pressure to “be safe,” and arrest both parties anyway. If that’s you, here’s what the law expects police to do—and what you can do to protect yourself and your record.

Under Connecticut’s primary- or dominant-aggressor standard, officers should act like on-scene evaluators and ask: Who is the person most responsible for the violence and who poses the greater ongoing threat? That means looking beyond “who hit first” and weighing things like relative injuries, history, threats, witness statements, and whether someone acted in self-defense.

In short, the law discourages “arrest them both and let the court sort it out.” It pushes officers to make a reasoned judgment at the scene and arrest only the primary- or dominant-aggressor.

Because culture and habit are hard to break. A few common drivers:

• Mandatory-arrest muscle memory. For years, the default was “if there’s probable cause, arrest.” Many officers still fall back on that—especially under time pressure.
• Conflicting stories, no neutral witness. When both sides accuse the other, some officers treat dual arrest as the “safe” choice. It is very often a he said / she said situation with little or no evidence other tan the participants own statements.
• Documentation fear. It can feel safer to arrest both than to explain later why one person wasn’t arrested.
• Limited on-scene time. Real evaluations take time; patrol calls don’t always allow for it.
• Training gaps. Not everyone has the same level of comfort applying a dominant-aggressor analysis.

None of that excuses a dual arrest that should have been a single arrest. But it explains why we keep seeing it—even after 2019.

• Officers separate the parties, run checks for active protective orders, and scan for injuries.
• Each person gives a statement—often emotional, sometimes inconsistent.
• If both accuse the other and there’s some corroboration on both sides (marks, broken items, texts), the path of least resistance can become a dual arrest.
• Conditions of release are handed out quickly—sometimes no-contact—and one or both people go to lockup.

• Do not contact the other party. Even “just to clear the air” can trigger a violation arrest.
• Follow your conditions of release to the letter. No-contact means zero contact.
• Preserve evidence immediately. Save texts, call logs, Ring/doorbell clips, photos of injuries (or lack of injuries), and names of witnesses.
• Write down your memory while it’s fresh. Times, words said, any threats, alcohol or medication involved, prior incidents.
• Get experienced counsel involved fast. We’ll stabilize the situation and map the cleanest path to dismissal from day one.

Call me at 203-357-5555 for a confidential consultation. (We’ll also review your Criminal Protective Order and your next-day arraignment plan.)

• Outcome-first dismissal plan. We prioritize the fastest legitimate route to a dismissal based on your facts and risk profile.
• Protective-order tailoring. We push for the least restrictive order that keeps everyone safe without criminalizing everyday life.
• Self-defense and proportionality. Where appropriate, we frame the incident in context—who posed the ongoing threat vs. who was trying to disengage.
• Use what’s already in the file. We leverage available discovery and your existing documentation rather than chasing side investigations.
• Negotiation pressure points. Prior history, treatment options, and collateral consequences (work, housing, licensing) often move the needle.
• Diversion or straight dismissal. We pursue a straight dismissal when possible, with FVEP as a backstop when it protects your record.

The Family Violence Education Program is a pretrial diversion that can lead to a dismissal if you complete court-ordered classes and stay out of trouble for the program period. A few key points:

• Who’s typically eligible? First-timers and lower-level family-violence offenses often qualify; it can be used with “good cause” on a D felony but is not eligible for use on C felonies.
• How it works. The case is placed on a supervised track. You complete classes (and sometimes counseling), follow any protective order, and return to court for a final dismissal once finished.
• Why it’s useful in dual arrests. When the facts are muddy and trial risk is high for both sides, FVEP can protect your record while we continue to push for the best outcome.
• Not a confession. Applying for FVEP is not an admission of guilt; it’s a legal off-ramp designed to prevent long-term collateral damage from a single incident.
• Strategy matters. Sometimes we pursue FVEP as Plan B while we negotiate for a straight dismissal as Plan A—your facts drive the playbook.

(If you’re in Stamford, Greenwich, Norwalk, Bridgeport, or anywhere in Connecticut, I can walk you through FVEP eligibility and whether it’s the right move for your specific charge.)

“Melissa” called 911 after a shove turned into a scuffle. Both had superficial marks; both accused the other. Officers, pressed for time, arrested both and issued mutual no-contact orders. We synced the timing of first statements with available records and focused negotiations on defensive conduct and ongoing risk factors. Result: the state dropped her case and agreed to diversion for the other party. Melissa kept her job, her record, and her housing application on track.

They’re used interchangeably. The idea is to identify the person most responsible for the violence and the ongoing risk—not just who technically struck first.

They can, but the 2019 change discourages it. Officers should arrest only the primary- or dominant-aggressor when the facts support a clear call. But in reality they usually arrest both parties.

It can. Early statements and context often show fear and defensive conduct. We put that in front of the prosecutor while we push for dismissal.

We focus on outcomes, not scavenger hunts. The quickest path is to stabilize things at arraignment (get the right protective order), keep you 100% compliant, and present a clean, credible plan for dismissal. Depending on the facts, that could mean pushing for a straight dismissal, negotiating brief noncriminal counseling, or using FVEP as a safety net.

Arraignment. Protective orders get set or continued, and we begin negotiations and evidence requests. Bring your conditions-of-release paperwork.

Jail is uncommon in lower-level first-offense family-violence cases, but conditions and orders are serious. Don’t guess—get advice tailored to your facts.

If the order says “residential stay-away,” yes—until we modify it. Violating an order is a new crime. We can petition to tailor it.

No. Sometimes the best result is a straight dismissal. Other times FVEP is the safest way to protect your record. We’ll map options for both.

They don’t control the case—the State does. Their cooperation helps, but prosecutors look at the whole picture.

An arrest is public. The goal is a dismissal so you can truthfully say the case was thrown out. We’ll protect your record every step of the way.

The primary- or dominant-aggressor law was meant to reduce dual arrests. If you were still swept up in one, you’re not alone—and you’re not stuck. Let’s get in front of it.

Call 203-357-5555 for a confidential consultation with Attorney Allan F. Friedman or our online contact page.

Helpful next reads on my web site - Criminal Defense section.