Pittsfield, MA- On Monday, April 13th the Berkshire District Attorney’s Office concluded its investigation into the shooting death of Biagio Kauvil, age 27, by a Hinsdale Police Officer on January 7, 2026, at 53 Off South Street, Hinsdale, Massachusetts. This investigation was conducted by the Berkshire State Police Detective Unit assigned to the Berkshire District Attorney’s Office, with cooperation from the Berkshire County Law Enforcement Council’s use of force investigation team and the Massachusetts State Police.
The reports included in the investigation are as follows:
• A report from the State Police Detective Unit assigned to the Berkshire District Attorney’s Office (completed April 13th)
• A Ballistics report from the Massachusetts State Police (received the evening of April 10th)
• A Use of Force Report conducted by the independent Berkshire County Law Enforcement Council (The preliminary report is dated March 2nd, a FIT Review Letter from Interim Chief Adam Carlotto dated March 31st received by the Berkshire District Attorney’s Office on April 3rd )
• An autopsy and toxicology report from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (dated February 25th)
Based upon the facts and review of controlling law, Berkshire District Attorney Shugrue finds that Officer Jeffrey Spratt’s shooting of Mr. Kauvil was a lawful use of force in self-defense in direct response to the discharge of the firearm Mr. Kauvil possessed, which injured one office and hit another officer in his ballistic vest, and the potential continued use of the firearm, which was likely to cause serious bodily injury or death. Additionally, Berkshire District Attorney Shugrue finds that Officer Chelsea Eichstedt’s two Taser deployments were a lawful use of force in self-defense.
The investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Kauvil was complex. The total interaction between Mr. Kauvil and members of law enforcement at the 53 Off South Street residence spanned approximately a little less than one hour; however, the period of time in which the two officers examined for the scope of the criminal investigation were in physical proximity to Mr. Kauvil, who was in possession of a gun, was approximately 43 seconds.
In examining the incident, the Berkshire District Attorney’s Office divided the period of time into two distinct groups:
• Part I was the series of events that occurred prior to the breach of the bedroom door where Mr. Kauvil had sequestered himself from law enforcement.
• Part II was the series of events that occurred after law enforcement breached the bedroom door and physically encountered Mr. Kauvil.
A full summary of the January 7th events, including information on the FBI’s non-criminal ‘Be On the Look Out’ notice on January 6th can be found in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which is included in the press packet. It is imperative to fully read the Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law report which fully details the events of that day.
Basic Summary of Events
Part I begins on the morning of January 7th when two police officers were dispatched to 53 Off South Street in Hinsdale for a well-being check, which was initiated when Mr. Kauvil called 911 three times and hung up each time. The home was identified as belonging to Mr. Kauvil’s mother. At approximately 10:12 am the two officers, Chief Shawn Boyne of the Hinsdale Police Department and Officer Chelsea Eichstedt of the Dalton Police Department, arrived at the residence. They knocked on the door which was answered by minors who lived in the home. The minors reported to the officers that Mr. Kauvil had locked himself in a bedroom and that their mother was not home at that time. Mr. Kauvil was apparently experiencing a mental health episode. The officers waited outside the home until Mr. Kauvil’s mother returned home. When she arrived at the house, Mr. Kauvil’s mother informed officers that this was the first time she was aware that Mr. Kauvil had been suffering from this type of condition.
The officers, with his mother’s agreement, made a decision to take Mr. Kauvil into custody for a Section 12, involuntary mental health commitment. To de-escalate the situation, the officers moved their cruisers from the front of the house. Throughout this period more officers arrived, two from the Hinsdale Police Department, Sergeant Dominik Crupi and Officer Jefrey Spratt, and one from the Dalton Police Department, Officer Jacob Tiffany. Both Dalton officers were wearing Department issued body worn cameras. Officers asked Mr. Kauvil’s mother if she believed he had a weapon to which she responded ‘no’; however, Mr. Kauvil’s mother clearly communicated with officers that Mr. Kauvil had an LTC (license to carry) which means he could legally possess and carry a firearm.
As the family left the house to clear the space, officers began to enter it. Mr. Kauvil’s mother asked Mr. Kauvil through the bedroom door if he had any weapons to which he responded ‘no’. At about 10:40am, Seargent Crupi began to speak with Mr. Kauvil through the bedroom door. Seargent Crupi explained to fellow officers that he had an existing connection with Mr. Kauvil as he had recently helped Mr. Kauvil get his car out of the snow. Sergeant Crupi also believed he knew Mr. Kauvil from Aldi’s where Mr. Kauvil worked. Seargent Crupi attempted to de-escalate the situation and persuade Mr. Kauvil to exit the room. This attempt was unsuccessful. Officers also work to make the environment quieter: they turned off the TV and a ceiling fan and they turned down their radios. At 10:57am, officers received confirmation that the ambulance was staged and prepared to transport Mr. Kauvil for the Section 12.
Once the ambulance had arrived to take Mr. Kauvil to the hospital, officers decided to breach the door. This begins the start of Part II of the investigation. When officers breached the bedroom door, the group attempted to take Mr. Kauvil into custody. When officers entered the bedroom, Mr. Kauvil had a firearm, a .380 Smith and Wesson, in his left hand. He maintained possession of the firearm throughout the struggle. When officers entered the room, Mr. Kauvil stated “Kill me. Kill me.” Seargent Crupi attempted to restrain him and was able to get him face down on the bed, however, Mr. Kauvil continued to struggle. As officers attempted to place handcuffs on Mr. Kauvil’s right hand, his left hand, along with the firearm remained under his body. During the struggle, Mr. Kauvil’s firearm discharged striking Sergeant Crupi through the hand and lodging in Chief Boyne’s bulletproof vest. Sergeant Crupi stated, “Gun. Gun. Gun.” Officer Spratt unholstered his service weapon, a Sig Sauer semi-automatic pistol, pointed it at Mr. Kauvil, and subsequently discharged it. The bullet struck Sergeant Crupi in the elbow. Following the discharge, Mr. Kauvil continued to struggle. During this time period, Officer Eichstedt twice deployed her taser in an attempt to immobilize Mr. Kauvil. Both attempts were unsuccessful. During this same time period, Chief Boyne stated, “I’m hit” in response to the bullet from Mr. Kauvil’s weapon striking the chief in the vest. Officer Spratt fired his service weapon a second time, striking Mr. Kauvil in the head, ultimately leading to his death. It is crucial to remember that this interaction was 43 seconds in length.
Legal Determination:
The operative period for the legal determination of self-defense is in Part II, after the breach of the door. The Berkshire District Attorney’s Office chose to include the facts from the entire investigation, including Part I of the investigation leading up to the entry into the bedroom for both context and transparency.
Two of the officers were the scope of the criminal investigation to determine the legality of their use of self-defense: Officer Chelsea Eichstedt of the Dalton Police Department and Officer Jeffrey Spratt of the Hinsdale Police Department. Officer Eichstedt twice deployed non-lethal force in the form of a taser. Officer Spratt twice deployed lethal force in the firing his service weapon. Neither Officer Eichstedt nor Officer Spratt made the final determination to breach the door.
Page 26 of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law report begins a review the intricacies of the law of self-defense and use of force in Massachusetts. In a general summary, the right to use non-deadly force arises at a somewhat lower level of danger than the right to use deadly force; however, the statutory and regulatory restrictions of an officer’s use of non-deadly force are similar to those for deadly force. In a very broad overview, generally in Massachusetts, an individual may act in self-defense, using a dangerous weapon likely to cause serious injury or death, where there is evidence that they had reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm or death and a reasonable belief that no other means would suffice to prevent such harm. Prior to an officer acting within lawful authority and justification for using deadly force, three elements must be present: 1) de-escalation tactics have been attempted and failed or are not feasible based on the totality of the circumstances; 2) the force is necessary to prevent imminent harm to the officer or another person and 3) the amount of force used is proportionate to the threat of imminent harm and is objectively reasonable.
Page 29 of the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law report there begins a detailed explanation of the application of the law to the events in Part II of the incident. When the door was breached, five officers entered the bedroom that Mr. Kauvil had barricaded himself in. When they entered, Mr. Kauvil stated “Kill me. Kill me.” Officers attempted verbal commands and persuasion, telling and asking Mr. Kauvil to stop resisting. These attempts were unsuccessful. An officer immediately attempted to restrain Mr. Kauvil and was able to bring him onto a bed in the room; however, Mr. Kauvil continued to physically struggle.
Officer Eichstedt twice deployed her taser when Mr. Kauvil was on the bed. The taser deployment is a use of non-deadly force. When officers attempted to handcuff Mr. Kauvil, he continued to physically resist them. Officer Eichstedt observed three officers attempting to gain control of Mr. Kauvil’s arm; however, he continued to resist. Officer Eichstedt deployed her taser aiming for Mr. Kauvil’s back, but he continued to struggle. She deployed her taser a second time which again was unsuccessful in creating temporary immobilization.
The Berkshire District Attorney’s Office finds that both of Officer Eichstedt’s taser deployments were lawful. Non-deadly force can be used in lawful self-defense.
Officer Spratt twice deployed his service firearm when Mr. Kauvil was on the bed. On entry, Officer Spratt had his taser unholstered and ready. By the time he cleared an area of the room, Officer Spratt observed a struggle occurring. At this point he holstered his taser and pulled out his handcuffs and attempted to place a handcuff around Mr. Kauvil’s right wrist but was unable to do so. Officer Spratt heard Sergeant Crupi yell, “Gun, gun, gun.” At this point, Officer Spratt drew his firearm and pointed it at Mr. Kauvil. The pointing of a firearm is itself a consideration of force.
The Berkshire District Attorney’s Office finds that Officer Spratt’s pointing of his gun under these conditions was a proportionate use of force and, therefore, lawful. With ‘gun’ being yelled, Officer Spratt was in fear of his safety and that of the other officers in the room.
After pointing his gun, Officer Spratt reported hearing a muffled pop. Sergeant Crupi said, “I’m hit.” Officer Spratt then fired one round toward Mr. Kauvil.
The Berkshire District Attorney’s Office finds that the first firing of Officer Spratt’s service weapon was a lawful use of force as it was necessary to prevent an imminent serious or deadly harm to himself or another.
Following the first firing of his service weapon, Officer Spratt believed he heard another muffled shot and Chief Boyne said, “I’m hit”. The body camera footage’s audio only captured one muffled ‘pop’. This was later confirmed in the April 10th ballistics report. Receipt and review of ballistics report was imperative to the findings of this investigation. Officer Spratt also heard a taser deployment at this time. Mr. Kauvil continued to struggle, and officers were unable to gain control of his arms. Officer Spratt fired a second round toward Mr. Kauvil, striking Mr. Kauvil in the head.
The Berkshire District Attorney’s Office finds that the second firing of Officer Spratt’s service weapon was a lawful use of force as it was necessary to prevent imminent serious or deadly harm to himself or another.
Mr. Kauvil succumbed to the injuries he sustained from being struck in the head.
District Attorney Shugrue stated, “While the findings were non-criminal, I find it imperative to state that while there will be no criminal charges, the Force Investigation Team did find considerable concern regarding policies in the Hinsdale Police Department. I strongly recommend that the Town of Hinsdale hire an investigator that is completely independent to the agency and the Town to conduct a formal review of their internal policies and their applications to the events on the January 7th.”
District Attorney Shugrue continued, “I understand that this is an extraordinarily difficult time for Biagio’s family. This morning, my office met with his family and explained the full findings of facts and shared all of the reports available with them. My thoughts remain with Biagio’s family during this difficult time.”