Update: Cooke is off the Hook For Reckless Endangerment Charge

This story was updated at 10:18 p.m. to include a comment from the Branford Police Department

Today, in New Haven court, the judicial system nolled the second-degree reckless endangerment charge against Branford’s Wayne Cooke on Nov. 15. The charge stems from the early November incident, when Cooke admitted to police to lawn signs in an attempt to advert people . The police maintained that any signs placed on public property were no longer the property of Cooke and therefore .

Cooke told authorities he did not mean to harm anyone when applying the Bird Gel to the ‘DaRos Dishonest’ signs but did admit that he was aware of the warning labels on the substance when he received it in the mail.

Cooke told police he called "Poison Control" as well "Yale" to determine if the Bird Gel was a dangerous substance.

This evening, Branford Police Chief Kevin Halloran noted that the department also called Connecticut Poison Control before seeking an arrest warrant for Cooke from the state's attorney's office on Nov. 3.

“It is important for the citizens of Branford to be aware of the circumstances which led to the arrest of Wayne Cooke and should be assured that the Branford Police Department conducted thorough investigation which included, but was not limited to advice of experts from the state concerning the toxicity of the chemical utilized by Mr. Cooke," stated Halloran. "The department stayed within the parameters of the criminal justice system and did not proceed hastily but applied for a warrant for Mr. Cooke, based on the advice of the State’s Attorney.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the investigation were submitted in an arrest warrant affidavit and the warrant was ultimately signed by a prosecutor and a judge indicating that there was indeed probable cause for Mr. Cooke's arrest."

During the hearing today, prosecutor David Strollo as well as Cooke’s attorney Walt Spader, determined that Cooke did call the Connecticut Poison Control Center inquiring about the dangers of Bird Gel.

This evening Spader said, “The point is, to be guilty under reckless endangerment, there has to be a conscious disregard for general safety. What Wayne did, he took the proactive approach to make sure he wasn’t endangering the public. The substance was advertised as nontoxic.”

Spader confirmed that Cooke first attempted to call Yale before using the Bird Gel and was redirected to Connecticut Poison Control. Cooke said he spoke to “Carol” and after their conversation felt Bird Gel was a safe substance. While Cooke was under the impression that “Carol” worked for Yale, it was later found that he was transferred to the UConn Health Center, where Connecticut Poison Control is run. It was confirmed that he had a phone conversation with “Carol” on Nov. 1 but the conversation was not recorded. Spader said he could not confirm or deny if Cooke asked Carol about the safety of applying Bird Gel to signs.

Spader who is a member of the Marcus Law Firm and who is well known for his work with election law said the quick hearing today “was a lot of work on the prosecutor’s part and a lot of my research on the law.”

Halloran commented, "Through prosecutorial discretion, State’s Attorney Strollo decided not to prosecute the case but reserves the right to reopen it and prosecute at any time during the next thirteen months, which displayed leniency on behalf of the court. The case was not dismissed which is a judge’s decision to end the case."

The judge advised Cooke to stay away from Bird Gel until after the next election and he was advised never to do something similar in nature again, said Spader. With the case being nolled, Cooke must not commit a similar offense within in 13 months of the case or it can be re-opened. Spader also added that Cooke is not barred from placing signs – that’s his first amendment right.

With very little comment, Cooke said via e-mail this evening, “I'm glad it's over and I think the prosecutor and judge were fair.”

Halloran said of the actions of the Department, "The Branford Police Department acted in accordance with its mission to protect the public from harm and keep the community aware of danger. The decision to remove the signs and notify the public was, and is, believed to be, in the best interest of the public. The rationale underlying their removal was completely apolitical. The safety of the Branford community is too important to ignore and to take any other course of action than we did would be shirking our responsibility to our citizens. It was a tough call but one that needed to be made.”