State v. Arokium, 2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 315

Stamford police investigated suspected narcotics activity at a hotel; confidential informant described a cocaine seller named Charlie in room 273.
Informant previously provided reliable information leading to arrests and narcotics recovery; Charlie was described as a tall, dark-skinned, shaved-head male in his thirties.
Confidential informant arranged a controlled cocaine purchase from room 273 on January 6, 2009; substances tested positive for cocaine.
The hotel clerk advised Charles Arokium had been renting room 273 for about 15 weeks.
Police observed several individuals leaving room 273 with bags; one carried cash in a shoe box; a cash stash was later found.
Defendant left room 273 carrying a bag, matched the informant’s Charlie description, and was stopped in a cab after police began surveillance and sought a search warrant for the room; during the stop and surrounding events, cocaine and packaging materials were observed in plain view.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the cab stop was lawfully based on reasonable suspicion	State: informant reliability and corroborating observations supported reasonable suspicion.	Arokium: tip was vague; insufficient corroboration; no criminal activity observed.	Yes; stop justified by reasonable and articulable suspicion formed from reliable informant and corroborating police observations.
Whether probable cause arose during the Terry stop for arrest	State: evolving observations during stop established probable cause.	Arokium: no furtive behavior; no grounds for probable cause.	Yes; plain-view seizure after stop was lawful and provided probable cause to arrest.
Whether the double jeopardy issue requires merger or vacatur of lesser offense	State: Polanco dictates vacatur as proper remedy for lesser included offense.	Arokium: merger would be proper under prior Chicano framework.	Vacatur approach applied; remanded to vacate possession of narcotics (lesser offense) to comply with Polanco.

State v. Burns, 140 Conn. App. 347 (2013) (reasonable-suspicion standards for investigatory stops (informant reliability factors))
State v. Clark, 297 Conn. 1 (2010) (informant reliability when known from past practice; no corroboration required)
State v. Miller, 137 Conn. App. 520 (2012) (general framework for reasonable suspicion and stop analysis)
State v. Doyle, 139 Conn. App. 367 (2012) (status-quo rationale for temporary investigative detentions)
State v. Sward, 124 Conn. App. 646 (2010) (limits and scope of Terry stops in drug cases)
State v. Butler, 296 Conn. 62 (2010) (drug dealing context supports consideration of dangerousness in stops)
State v. Nash, 278 Conn. 620 (2006) (emergency and risk considerations in police stops)
State v. Aviles, 277 Conn. 281 (2006) (police actions balancing rights and officer safety in stops)
State v. Brodia, 129 Conn. App. 391 (2011) (plain-view seizure standards after lawful intrusion)
State v. Polanco, 308 Conn. 242 (2013) (vacatur as remedy for double jeopardy violations from greater/lesser offenses)
State v. Chicano, 216 Conn. 699 (1990) (merger of convictions approach prior to Polanco)