Opinion
No. UWY-CR10-389069-T
April 25, 2011
DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
ATTY. CARTY: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Good morning.
ATTY. DAVENPORT: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Good morning.
ATTY. CARTY: For the record, Attorney Paul Carty for the defendant, Chumell Williams, and —
ATTY. BOWDREN: Attorney John Bowdren with Jack O'Donnell's office for Mr. Williams.
THE COURT: Mr. Williams is present. This is the State of Connecticut v. Chumell Williams.
Mr. Williams can have a seat, please.
ATTY. BOWDREN: Your Honor, if I may ask the . . . Mr. Williams's family is outside.
THE COURT: Sure.
ATTY. BOWDREN: They may not realize.
THE COURT: Attorney Davenport is here for the State, sitting in for Attorney Jayne Kennedy.
ATTY. DAVENPORT: That is correct, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay . . . No, that's all right. We're going to be very brief.
All right. We are here this morning, somewhat belatedly. The defendant is here for a judicially supervised pretrial this morning, but, as I indicated, when the case came back in I wanted to finish putting on the record my decision on the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seizedfrom his vehicle and I'm prepared to do that.
The defendant, Chumell Williams, moves to suppress a handgun and drugs seized from his vehicle by the Waterbury police. Following an evidentiary hearing and arguments by counsel, the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence the following facts.
On March 25, 2010, three Waterbury police officers were patrolling Waterbury streets in an unmarked police vehicle and in plain clothes.
At approximately 9 p.m. the officers stopped their vehicle at a red light at the intersection of East Farms Road and North Main Street. This intersection is part of a high-crime area where the police have made numerous arrests for narcotic and firearm offenses. The area is well-lit and the visibility was good that evening.
While stopped at the intersection they observed the defendant's vehicle, a black Maxima, parked along the curb on West Farms Road, very close to the intersection of West Farms and North Main Street. East Farms becomes West Farms after it crosses North Main Street.
An individual was standing at the driver's window of the defendant's vehicle. The police then observed the driver hand a small item to the individual standing outside the window. The driver of the defendant's vehicle subsequently turned out to be the defendant.
Based on the officer's training and experience, they reasonably suspected that they may have just witnessed a drug sale and decided that they should investigate further.
Accordingly, the officers drove the vehicle through the intersection and parked further down along the curb on West Farms. They exited the vehicle and proceeded on foot towards the defendant's vehicle with their police badges displayed around their necks.
As the officers neared the man, later identified as Shawn Warner, standing outside of the vehicle, they demanded that he show the officer his hands. Warner then proceeded to drop on the ground a small plastic bag containing a white rocklike substance, which the officers, based upon their training and experience, reasonably concluded was cocaine.
Having witnessed Warner drop this item, the officers more than confirmed their reasonable and articulable (phonetic) suspicion that Warner and the defendant had been engaged in a narcotics transaction.
One of the officers placed Warner under arrest while another began to direct his attention to the black Maxima and the driver of the vehicle. A strong odor of unburnt marijuana was coming from the car. There were four occupants in the car: two in the front seats and two in the rear seats. The officer immediately demanded that the defendant show him his hands. The defendant did not immediately comply, but instead appeared to place his hands in the center console of the vehicle. It reasonably appeared to the officer that the defendant was either trying to conceal an item or to reach for a weapon.
The officer again demanded that the defendant show him his hands and the defendant subsequently complied. The defendant was removed from the vehicle and placed in handcuffs. The officers then called for backup assistance on their radio. Once backup arrived, the other individuals were removed from the car.
At this point one of the officers opened the center console and discovered what reasonably appeared to be crack and powder cocaine. While doing so he also observed what reasonably appeared to be four bags of marijuana on the front passenger side floor.
After these items were removed from the vehicle the officers continued to smell a strong odor of marijuana in the car, which reasonably led them to believe that the additional . . . that additional quantities of marijuana was still in the car. The smell was strongest in the back seat area and appeared to be emanating from behind one of the seats.
While searching the back seat area the officers pushed a button on one of the rear seats which then permitted the seat to be flipped down. This mechanism thereby allowed anyone sitting in the rear seat to easily access a portion of the trunk of the vehicle. Behind the seat the officers immediately observed a dark plastic bag that smelled strongly of marijuana.
The officers opened the bag and saw what reasonably appeared to be powder cocaine, marijuana, and a second opaque black plastic bag. The second bag was heavy and conformed around an object that appeared to be a handgun. The officer opened the bag and confirmed that it in fact did contain a firearm. All of the evidence was seized, the defendant arrested and charged with narcotics and firearm offenses.
The Court does not credit the testimony of the defendant's witnesses.
Quote: When a reasonable and articulable suspicion exists the detaining officer may conduct an investigative stop of the suspect in order to confirm or dispel his suspicions, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, Pages 30 through 31, 1968.
During the course of a lawful investigatorydetention, if the officer reasonably believes that the detained individual might be armed and dangerous he or she may undertake a pat-down search of the individual to discover weapons. Additionally, under the Federal Constitution an officer conducting a Terry stop of an automobile may search the passenger compartment of the automobile for weapons limited to areas where the weapon might be hidden if he or she reasonably believes the subject is potentially dangerous, Michigan v. Lawn, 463 United States, page 1032, 1983, end quote, that's State v. Wilkins, 240 Connecticut 489, pages 495 through 96, 1997. See also State v. Lamme, L-a-m-m-e, 216 Connecticut, 172 at page 184, 1990. That case holds that's principles underlying constitutionally permissible Terry stops apply in the analysis under Article 1st, Section 9 of the State Constitution.
Under the circumstances of this case the police had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in a narcotics transaction when they first observed him hand a small item to Warner. This act was consistent with hand-to-hand drug transactions that these officers had viewed in the past. Moreover, this took place in a high-crime area. At this point the officers had a right to detain the defendant and to investigate further. At this point, however, the defendant was not evendetained. Instead the officers' reasonable and articulable suspicion was further confirmed and strengthened when they observed Warner drop what appeared to be cocaine outside the defendant's car.
Merely approaching the defendant's car did not constitute a Terry stop, see State v. Kidd, K-i-d-d, 59 Conn.App. 598, page 602, 2000, which held that a . . . that merely approaching an individual's parked vehicle does not constitute a Terry stop. It was only after they arrested Warner that the officers turn their attention to the defendant and detain him by removing him from the vehicle and handcuffing him.
At this point there is little question that they had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the defendant had committed a crime. At this point they had a right under the federal and state constitutions to search the passenger compartment of the vehicle for weapons under Terry. They had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant might be armed and dangerous in light of their knowledge of drug dealers and drug dealing. The discovery of the drugs in the front seat areas of the car, along with the strong odor of marijuana, and all of the other facts known to the police at this point obviously gave the police officers more than probable cause to continue searching other areas of the car under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Accordingly, the defendant's motion is denied in its entirety.
All right. My understanding, Attorney Carty, is that you're going to go next door and engage in further proceedings with Judge Damiani?
ATTY. Carty: That is correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. And so, if an additional date is necessary in the case, we can do that.
ATTY. CARTY: Very good. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Anything else?
ATTY. DAVENPORT: Not from the State, Your Honor. Thank you.
ATTY. CARTY: Judge, will your decision be available in a written decision or is it just . . .
THE COURT: Well, I'll order the transcript now. I will ask the reporter to give me a copy and I will sign it and it will be mailed out to you by the clerk's office in order for you to perfect your appellate rights.
ATTY. CARTY: Okay. Will this also be a published decision?
THE COURT: No. No, it's just . . . just be on the record decision.
THE COURT: We're adjourned.