Opinion
No. CV02 0046628/A.C. 24835
December 23, 2003
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO SUPPRESS
TRANSCRIPT
THE COURT: Okay. The court notes the following for the record with respect to the defendant's Motion to Suppress. The exclusionary rule first applied to the states in Mapp versus Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, requires the suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment, the fourth amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant-less search is per se unreasonable, under both the U.S. constitution and Connecticut constitutions subject to certain exceptions.
The issue of standing has been raised in the defendant's brief in this matter. The court does not find that the state has questioned the issue of standing, based on its presentation of evidence. There was a response to the issue of standing when raised by the defendant so the court will not address the issue of standing in this matter.
In this matter there is no warrant, so the state has the burden of persuasion to show justification on the basis of one or more of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement with respect to the search and seizure in this matter.
The court notes preliminarily that the rule in Connecticut under the following cases, State versus Altrui, ALTRUI, 188 Connecticut 161, State versus Burns, 23 Conn. App. 602, and State versus Marino, 17 Conn. App. 677, that passengers in automobiles have no reasonable expectation of privacy, with respect to the vehicle.
The court further notes with respect to investigatory stops, an individual may be detained, frisked, when a reasonable and articuable suspicion exists, when police are legitimately in the area, any evidence in plain view may be seized. Any search within the scope of these rules is restricted to the person of the arrestee, and the areas within their immediate control.
Regarding investigatory stops, the general rule when a reasonable and articuable suspicion exists, the detaining officer may conduct an investigative stop of the suspect in order to confirm or dispel their suspicions. Additionally, under the federal constitution, an officer conducting an investigatory stop of an automobile may search the passenger compartment of the automobile. During the course of such a search, the officer legitimately uncovers incriminatory evidence, establishes probable cause to arrest a suspect, they may do so. Reasonable and articuable suspicion is an objective standard that focuses not on the actual state of mind of the police officer, but on whether a reasonable person having the information available to and known by the police, would have had that level of suspicion.
Officers must be able to point to specific and articuable facts, which taken together, with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion. The standard contains two elements, an assessment based upon all of the circumstances including objective observations made by the detaining officer, in consideration of the modes of operation of certain kinds of lawbreakers, from which a trained law enforcement officer draws inferences, and makes deductions based upon professional experience in expertise, and two, the assessment must raise a suspicion that the particular individual or individuals being stopped are or about to engage in wrongdoing.
With respect to the specifics of the matter before the court, there are several items, several facts, which independently may not be sufficient, but are all necessary to reach the conclusion required under the standard. With respect to the place or knowledge of a crime in a particular area by itself is not sufficient to justify an investigative stop. The defendant is present in a known drug area, in combination with apparent drug activity, and the defendant's questionable behavior does support the officer's suspicion.
In addition, we have the time in the evening that this incident took place, the activity with respect to the phone. There is a time lapse where the officers observed the defendant as stated by the officers looking for someone or something. The officers did not approach until the other vehicle arrived. After the defendant had entered the other vehicle, only then did the officers take any action. Further, the officers indicated that they were familiar with the area, also identified that from their knowledge and experience, the activities engaged in had an indicia of criminal activity. The court can consider the knowledge and experience of the officers in their determinations in these matters.
The court then reviewing the legality of the stop must examine the specific information available to the officers, the time of the initial intrusion, and again, any rational inferences to be derived therefrom. The court is also required to look at the totality of the circumstances, and as indicated, while each of the specific facts made known to the court, might in and of themselves not be sufficient, when taken together, the court finds that there was a reasonable and articuable suspicion in this matter, under the rule in Terry versus Ohio. Therefore, the defendant's Motion to Suppress with respect to all of the items is denied.
By the Court: CREMINS, JUDGE.