Source: https://www.laag.us/2008/01/connecticut-supreme-court-bans-piccolo.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:49:45+00:00

Document:
This is just an example of the lengths that the fire and smoke sellers will go to get the ability to "legally" sell a firework. What do you think was a stake for TNT fireworks in one ban in one state on one firework? Clearly a very profitable Chinese made firework that clearly must be a top seller due to its ability to annoy (via noise) and to be modified into an illegal firework that shoots in the air. That popularity and money must have been the reason TNT took the issue all the way to the Conn. Sup. Court. Looks to me like most states really dont have a chance against this kind of power. This reminds me of how the tobacco companies react to bans and advertising laws. They run to court as fast as possible. Cigarettes are on the run. Lets hope with anti-pollution laws and global warming that "personal fireworks" (those you use at home) will eventually loose favor with a more educated consumer. Once Hummers start to loose favor I think the tide may start to turn on the fireworks sellers.
The state Supreme Court often decides weighty matters, such as the constitutionality of the death penalty or whether gay and lesbian couples have a right to marry.
Sometimes its rulings involve more fanciful issues, such as Friday's determination of whether the "Piccolo Pete" firework is a harmless sparkler or a pyrotechnic firecracker banned by state law.
Suffice to say, you can no longer buy a Piccolo Pete in Connecticut.
Prior to June of 2000, all fireworks were illegal in Connecticut. Effective June 1 of that year, the legislature carved out an exception for sparklers and "fountains" that spewed sparks or smoke, but were considered nonexplosive. Enter Piccolo Pete, marketed by American Promotional Events, doing business as TNT Fireworks.
Five years later, however, the state fire marshal and state police personnel scrutinized Piccolo Pete and concluded that it is a potentially unsafe pyrotechnic that emits a 4- to 5-inch flame that lasts up to six seconds. It also produces some sparks, some smoke and a loud whistle.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal issued a cease and desist order in 2005, barring TNT from selling the Piccolo Pete. TNT complied, but also appealed to the trial court, which determined that Piccolo Pete was a "fountain" firework and exempt from the state ban. The court told Blumenthal that he could not prevent TNT from marketing Piccolo Pete.
The trial involved a clash of the experts.
Wayne Maheu, head of the state Department of Public Safety's division of fire, emergency and building services, testified that Piccolo Pete emits some smoke and sparks, but that its "dominant feature" is its flame.
John Conkling, a chemist and frequent expert witness for the fireworks industry, countered that Piccolo Pete's most striking feature is its whistle, and that all sparklers and fountains involve some flame. He said that the firework meets the criteria for being exempt from the ban —that it is nonexplosive, non-aerial and contains 100 grams or less of pyrotechnic material.
The trial court concluded that because Piccolo Pete emits some smoke, it falls within the definition of "fountain" fireworks that are exempt from the ban. Fountain fireworks, by law, must emit a "shower" of sparks or smoke as their dominant feature.
The state Supreme Court, in its unanimous decision released Friday, reversed the trial court and doomed Piccolo Pete to the status of a banned firework. It did so through statutory analysis, while acknowledging that a "shower of smoke is not a commonly used term," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote.
"In view of the fact that fireworks are widely banned and otherwise intensively regulated under our statutory scheme, it would be contrary to that scheme to construe it as permitting a dangerous and otherwise prohibited pyrotechnic effect — in the present case, a four to five inch exposed flame that lasts up to six seconds — merely because the pyrotechnic effect is produced by a firework that also emits a shower of colored sparks or smoke," Palmer wrote.
The high court could have remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the smoke emitted by Piccolo Pete satisfies the "shower of smoke" standard required to be exempt from the ban. Instead, the justices watched the same video demonstration "of an ignited Piccolo Pete" that the trial court did and determined that no one reasonably could conclude that the smoke emitted by the firework constituted "a shower of smoke."
Contact Lynne Tuohy at ltuohy@courant.com.
AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS, INC. v.
general, for the appellants (defendants).
F. Jerome O’Malley, for the appellee (plaintiff).
reverse the judgment of the trial court.
smoke, and a loud whistling noise.
more than 100 grams of pyrotechnic mixture per item.
in reliance on the provisions of P.A. 00-198.
sale of Piccolo Pete in this state.
department of public safety, testified for the state.
meaning of § 29-356 (2) or (3).
shower of colored sparks or a shower of smoke.
The state’s claim raises an issue of statutory interpretation.
effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. . . .
of the relevant statutory provisions de novo.
produce at least some smoke.
statute as a whole in order to reconcile all of its parts’’).
Inc., 281 Conn. 417, 424, 915 A.2d 298 (2007).
omitted.) Hatt v. Burlington Coat Factory, 263 Conn.
of the particular type of firework known as a fountain.
tube that produces a shower of colored sparks or smoke.
fountain within the meaning of § 29-356 (3).
significant public safety concerns because of their combustibility.
construed to avoid bizarre or absurd results).
motivating policies of the statute. . . . Moskal v.
United States, 498 U.S. 103, 108, 111 S. Ct. 461, 112 L.
Ed. 2d 449 (1990); accord State v. Jason B., [248 Conn.
of being lenient to wrongdoers. . . .); State v.
of lenity is inapplicable.18 See id., 220.
the meaning of § 29-356 (3).
with direction to render judgment for the defendants.
that produces a shower of sparks upon ignition.
composition does not exceed two hundred grams.
Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1.
at which P.A. 00-198, § 2, was codified, are identical.
the relatively small amount of sparks that it emits.
retailers are not parties to this litigation.
9 Public Act 06-177 contains the current versions of §§ 29-356 and 29-357.
See footnotes 1 and 2 of this opinion.
however, is not at issue in this appeal.
and contains not more than 100 grams of pyrotechnic mixture.
14 The plaintiff conceded this fact at oral argument before this court.
to the facts of this case, § 1-2z does not limit our review of the state’s claim.
no more than 100 grams of pyrotechnic mixture per item.
fountain for purposes of § 29-356 (3).

References: v.

 § 29
 v. 
 § 29
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 § 29
 § 51
 § 65
 § 2
 § 1
 § 29