Can A Police Officer Spit In Someone's Face?

Spitting on someone is widely viewed as a humiliating and disrespectful act. When carried out by someone with state power, such as a police officer, it raises particularly acute legal and moral issues.

Many would instinctively say that an officer who spits on a civilian has crossed a line and should face serious consequences, potentially including jail time. Others might argue that the act is too minor to warrant imprisonment, particularly if no lasting harm occurred.

In Connecticut in 2025, a high-profile case brought these issues into stark relief. A State Police Sgt. Bryan Fahey spat in the face of YouTube civil rights activist SeanPaul Reyes (Long Island Audit) during a confrontation in the town of Groton.

The case has drawn intense scrutiny and debate around how the law treats such conduct by police officers.

The Reyes / Fahey Incident

The confrontation

On July 11, 2025, SeanPaul Reyes and his cameraman arrived at the residence of Connecticut State Police Sgt. Bryan Fahey in Groton. Reyes is known as "Long Island Audit" and for his civil right videos, challenging public officials and recording interactions.

According to published reporting and a police affidavit:

• Reyes, accompanied by his cameraman, walked up Fahey's driveway and rang the doorbell.
• Fahey emerged from his home carrying a gun at his side and ordered Reyes off the property, apparently upset that Reyes was there to ask questions about excessive overtime by the officer.
• The confrontation escalated. The video, as scrutinized by Groton investigators, allegedly shows Fahey spitting in Reyes' face.
• Fahey initially admitted he spat on Reyes, but later claimed the spitting was unintentional, that he was "foaming at the mouth" while yelling and that saliva may have inadvertently flown forward.
• Groton police, after zooming in on the video, stated it can clearly be observed that Fahey spit in Reyes' face.
• Reyes asked responding officers to charge Fahey with assault, but initially police declined, reporting that there was no specific statute that criminalized spitting per se.
• Weeks later, prosecutors filed a charge of disorderly conduct against Fahey.
• Fahey retired from the Connecticut State Police effective August 1st amid an internal affairs investigation.
• Fahey has asked for accelerated rehabilitation, a diversion-type program, in connection with the charge. If accepted and successfully completed, the charge could be dismissed.
• Meanwhile, Reyes and his cameraman themselves face state charges. First-degree criminal trespass, second-degree breach of peace, and originally voyeurism with malice. Later, the voyeurism charge was dropped by a judge.

The facts are well documented with video that supports the allegation the officer spat. The officer disputes intent, and the legal resolution is still pending.

A later development.... In a 911 call, Fahey is recorded saying, "I spit on you, you're God damn right." He also threatened to "shoot" Reyes, claiming he had threatened him and his family with violence. A false claim. Reyes had never threatened Fahey and his family.

These details add further gravity to the case and elevate the stakes in how prosecutors and courts treat it.

Connecticut Law: Spitting, Assault, Disorderly Conduct, And Police Misconduct

To assess whether jail time is appropriate, it's necessary to understand how Connecticut law defines relevant offenses.

Assault / battery and "simple assault"
While Connecticut does not have a statute labeled exactly "battery," conduct like unwanted harmful or offensive physical contact is often prosecuted under simple assault or as an assault statute.

Some legal guides suggest spitting may constitute "simple assault" depending on intent and context.

Under Connecticut law, a person commits second-degree assault when:

with intent to cause physical injury to another person, the actor causes such injury
or
the actor recklessly causes serious physical injury to another person
or
the actor uses a weapon or instrument.

There is also third-degree assault and various elevated versions if the victim is certain protected persons like police officers.

When someone spits on a police officer, some sources assert the law may treat that more severely because the target is a public safety official.

However, many of these guide sources are not definitive case law and in practice, prosecutors may prefer to bring charges under easier-to-prove statutes like disorderly conduct.

Disorderly conduct
Connecticut defines breach of the peace in second degree / disorderly conduct under Sec. 53a-181 (or related statutes) as including:

Engaging in fighting or violent behavior
Assaulting or striking another
Using abusive or obscene language in a public place
Creating a "public and hazardous or physically offensive condition" by an act not privileged
Threatening crimes or property damage

An intentionally spitting act could arguably fall under "physically offensive condition" or "strikes another", if interpreted broadly. The maximum penalty for a misdemeanor of this sort is often a small jail sentence. Up to 90 or 120 days, fines, or probation. In the Fahey case, the charge carries a maximum of 3 months in prison and a $500 fine.

Aggravated or elevated offenses involving police officers
When the victim is a police officer or another public safety official acting in the line of duty, the offense sometimes may be elevated. Some legal commentary suggests that spitting on a police officer might be prosecutable as a felony depending on intent and interference with duty, or as a higher class of assault.

One bail bonds site claims that spitting on a Connecticut police officer is considered a Class C felony and could result in jail time of up to 10 years. Though one should treat such commentary cautiously unless backed by statute or precedent.

Practically, prosecutors may refrain from elevating charges if intent or harm is ambiguous, especially in cases involving officers themselves. Indeed, in earlier stages in the Fahey matter, Groton police declined to arrest him because they believed no specific crime covered spitting.

Diversionary programs: Accelerated rehabilitation

Connecticut offers accelerated rehabilitation, AR, for first-time offenders in certain misdemeanor cases. Under AR:

• The defendant is placed under supervision with conditions
• If the defendant completes terms successfully, the charges may be dismissed
• The defendant avoids a criminal conviction on record

Fahey has applied to enter AR for his misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge. Because AR is often reserved for less serious offenses and first-time offenders, it signals a path to avoid jail time though not necessarily immunity.

Arguments For Jail Time In A Spitting-By-Officer Case

Why might one believe that a police officer who spits on a person should face jail time?

Abuse of power and trust
Police officers wield significant authority, including the legal power to detain, use force, and deprive liberty. When an officer responds with a degrading act of spitting, it represents not merely a minor assault but a betrayal of the public trust. Some would argue that such misconduct should be met with a strong deterrent: jail.

Symbolic weight and deterrence
Permitting an officer to humiliate civilians with impunity can erode public confidence. Jail time in egregious cases sends a message that no one is above the law.

Intentional offensive contact
Spitting is not accidental or incidental contact, it is a deliberate act of aggression. That suggests an intent to humiliate or provoke, raising culpability.

Potential health risk
Given the possibility of disease transmission, spitting can be more than mere disrespect; it can carry health risk, increasing the seriousness.

Consistency with assault penalties
If ordinary citizens who intentionally spit on other people may be prosecuted and jailed, so too should officers in the same circumstances. Equal accountability demands parity.

Preventing "exemptions" for law enforcement
If officers routinely receive preferential legal treatment, it undermines accountability. Some might argue that unless jail is on the table, officers may view spitting as a "low-risk" misconduct.

These arguments rest on moral, symbolic, and deterrence grounds, that serious assaultive conduct by officers should not be swept aside.

Arguments Against Jail Time

On the other hand, several counterarguments or mitigating points may limit the appropriateness or likelihood of jail:

Minor harm and lack of lasting injury
Spitting is typically nonviolent contact without lasting physical injury. Jails are more conventionally reserved for crimes involving bodily harm or serious threat.

Difficulty proving intent
If an officer claims the spitting was inadvertent, or part of heightened emotional reaction, prosecutors may struggle to meet the standard beyond reasonable doubt for more severe charges.

Availability of lesser sanctions
Discipline, civil liability, and professional consequences may suffice in some cases without resorting to criminal incarceration.

Public resources and case prioritization
Prosecutors may choose not to pursue jail-worthy charges for relatively minor misdemeanor conduct, preferring to focus on more serious crimes.

Legal ambiguity or gaps
If the statute does not clearly define spitting as an aggravated assault, or if the statute is ambiguous, courts may default to the lesser recognized offense which may not carry prison time in practice.

First-time offender, diversion opportunities
If the officer has no prior record and the conduct is viewed as isolated, a diversion (like AR) may be seen as more appropriate than incarceration.

In short, while jail is conceptually possible, practical, legal, and policy constraints may push the case toward lesser penalties.

What Seems Likely In The Reyes / Fahey Case

Given the facts and legal landscape, what is the realistic outcome in this case?

Fahey has already been charged only with a misdemeanor disorderly conduct count, not assault, indicating prosecutorial caution.

The maximum penalty is 3 months in jail + $500 fine.

Fahey is seeking accelerated rehabilitation which, if granted, could lead to dismissal of the charge upon compliance.

In court, Fahey may argue lack of intent. That plea would reduce the likelihood of a jury convicting him for a more serious offense.

Also relevant: the prosecution has likely noted that Groton police initially declined to arrest Fahey, thinking no specific statute covered spitting.

Reyes' own legal troubles, trespass, breach of peace, may complicate the optics and prosecutorial balance.

The fact that the voyeurism charge against Reyes and his cameraman was dropped suggests the court is not rushing to escalate every action to felony level.

The 911 tape revealing Fahey's statement, "I spit on you, you're God damn right," and his threat to shoot Reyes, may complicate Fahey's defense and push toward more serious treatment.

The case was moved from New London to Danielson court, likely to reduce local conflicts for the prosecutor's office.

Given all that, the likely outcome is:

Fahey might be accepted into AR, avoiding a criminal record if he completes conditions.

If AR is denied or not successfully completed, he would most likely face a short jail term within the 0–3 month range, though prosecutors may prefer probation.

A conviction may carry a fine and court costs.

Civil liability, lawsuit for assault or battery, deprivations of civil rights, may still proceed independently, with greater damages exposure.

Regardless of sentencing, this case will be widely scrutinized for its implications on police accountability.

Indeed, in local reporting it is already noted that some believe Fahey received leniency because he was a law enforcement officer.

Should Jail Time Be the Norm in These Cases?

While the specific outcome in this case remains to be seen, the broader question is whether, as a matter of principle, a police officer who spits on someone should face jail time, and if so, under what conditions.

Principles in Favor of Jail in Serious Cases

1. Deterrence and accountability
   Jail provides a stronger deterrent than mere internal discipline or fines. It underscores that officers are not above the law.
2. Seriousness of assault by authority figures
   The symbolic injury in such a case may justify harsher penalties, beyond what the same act by a private citizen might merit.
3. Remedying imbalance of power
   Spitting is a method of demeaning and dehumanizing the target. When used by someone who already has coercive power, the harm includes not just the victim but the public's confidence in law enforcement.
4. Consistency with use-of-force doctrine
   Many police departments treat any use of force or physical contact as potentially serious misconduct. Spitting, while not "force" in the typical sense, is an intentional physical act trespassing on personal dignity. Some departments might classify it as behavioral misconduct equivalent to "unnecessary force."

But Jail Should Be Reserved, Not Automatic

It's also reasonable to argue that not every instance warrants jail. Some considerations:

Context matters: If the officer has no prior record, if the incident is isolated, if the act was impulsive (though not excusable), and if the victim suffered no lasting harm, then probation or suspension might suffice.

Intent and culpability threshold: Jail should be reserved for clear, intentional, aggressive spitting, not ambiguous or inadvertent contact.

Alternative sanctions: Removal from duty, revocation of law enforcement commission, administrative discipline, and civil damages. These may carry significant consequences without criminal incarceration.

Case backlog and prosecutorial resources: Prosecutors may elect to focus on more serious violent crimes, reserving jail for the worst cases.

Proportionality: The punishment should fit the crime. A 30-day jail term for spitting may be viewed by some as disproportionate unless aggravating factors exist.

Thus, a balanced approach might be: Jail time should be available and used in egregious cases (especially when done by a police officer), but not necessarily the mandatory default for every spitting incident.

Legal And Policy Recommendations

Considering the gaps and ambiguities, here are some recommendations for law reform, prosecutorial policy, and oversight:

1. Clarify statute or case law
   Legislatures or courts could more explicitly define "spitting on a person" as assault or battery, with graded penalties depending on intent and harm.
2. Mandatory accountability protocols for officer misconduct
   Establish that when a sworn officer is accused of spitting on a citizen, an independent investigation must trigger immediately.
3. Presumptive diversion limits
   Limit or narrow the use of AR in cases involving government actors accusing misconduct against private persons, to avoid optics of favoritism.
4. Stronger internal discipline tied to criminal outcomes
   Departments should have policies that automatically suspend officers accused of assaultive misconduct pending criminal adjudication.
5. Civil remedies and transparency
   Ensure victims can pursue civil claims with minimal procedural hurdles, and that such cases are publicized to bolster deterrence.
6. Training and culture change
   Policy and training emphasizing de-escalation, dignity, and professionalism can reduce incidents of impulsive misconduct such as spitting.
7. Data tracking and reporting
   Maintain public databases of misconduct complaints and disciplinary outcomes, especially those involving physical acts, so that patterns can be detected and addressed.

Understandable To Demand Serious Legal Repercussions

If a police officer in Connecticut spits on someone, it is understandable to demand serious legal repercussions, including the possibility of jail time. Especially given the symbolic and trust-related implications of such misconduct.

The case of SeanPaul Reyes vs. Bryan Fahey puts this issue in sharp relief: the video evidence, the credibility battle over intent, the officer's threat, and the criminal and civil consequences all converge.

Connecticut's current laws and practices lean toward treating spitting as a misdemeanor in many cases, allowing diversion programs, and leaving jail as a theoretical but not always practical option.

In the Fahey case, the maximum penalty is three months, and prosecutors have already opted for a relatively modest charge rather than assault.

In the end, jail time should be on the table in serious cases of deliberate spitting by officers, but it should not be automatic. The ideal system balances deterrence, fairness, accountability, and proportionality.

Ultimately, what matters most is that the public sees that police misconduct, even humiliating, nonviolent misconduct, is not simply excused or swept under the rug, but is dealt with firmly and transparently.

FROM THE COURT – 2025-10-09

A superior court judge on Thursday, Oct 9, 2025, granted a court diversionary program for Sgt. Bryan Fahey. He will maintain a clean criminal record if he completes an 18-month probationary period, during which time he is barred from initiating any contact with SeanPaul Reyes (Long Island Audit).