170 Conn. App. 269
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Two consolidated appeals from conditional nolo contendere pleas after denial of motions to suppress: AC 36541 (June 22, 2012 stop — passenger Brito; PCP recovered) and AC 36543 (April 23, 2012 stop — driver Brito; marijuana, PCP, heroin, and cash recovered).
- June stop: Officer Weerden stopped an Acura at night for an allegedly unlit rear registration plate, observed passenger Brito appearing lethargic and ‘‘shoulder dip,’’ smelled no alcohol, saw loose tobacco on passenger floor, conducted a patdown, then searched the vehicle and found PCP under the front passenger seat.
- April stop: Officer Shea stopped a Honda for excessively tinted windows and suspended registration; smelled marijuana, the driver (Brito) admitted to having a ‘‘roach,’’ had prior drug/weapons arrests, was patted down (found ~$1,000), K‑9 and search uncovered marijuana, PCP, heroin, phones, and other items.
- Defendant argued both stops/searches lacked probable cause, the patdowns and detentions violated Terry, and evidence should be suppressed as fruit of illegal searches/arrests; the state maintained valid traffic‑stop bases and probable cause/protective justifications for searches.
- Trial court denied both suppression motions; appeals challenged factual findings (video contradicted testimony), standing to contest a passenger search, the scope/duration of detentions, and reliance on minor‑marijuana evidence after decriminalization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brito) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Lawfulness of June 22 stop (registration plate not illuminated) | Stop was justified by objectively observed traffic violation (unlit plate); subsequent search supported by probable cause from defendant’s appearance, furtive movement, and loose tobacco | Video undermines officer’s testimony that plate light was out; stop was pretextual and thus unlawful | Court credited officer testimony; stop lawful and search supported by probable cause; denial of suppression affirmed |
| 2) Standing to challenge vehicle search (passenger) | Issue raised on appeal; courts analyze whether defendant had legitimate expectation of privacy; if no standing suppression fails | State waited until appeal to raise standing; defendant argued record inadequate to litigate standing without remand | Court assumed standing without deciding (Rakas/expectation‑of‑privacy framework) and upheld search on merits anyway |
| 3) April 23 patdown and detention under Terry | Patdown was permissible for officer safety after defendant admitted past weapons charge and officer smelled marijuana; expansions of the stop were supported by reasonable suspicion; detention and subsequent search were lawful | Patdown was pretextual and lacked reasonable suspicion of danger; detention became an unlawful custodial arrest before probable cause existed, tainting later search | Court found patdown objectively justified (defendant admitted weapons history among other facts); detention did not unreasonably exceed Terry; evidence not fruit of unlawful arrest |
| 4) Probable cause to search vehicles (including after decriminalization of small marijuana amounts) | Probable cause based on totality: odor of marijuana, marijuana roach, furtive behavior, physical signs of drug use, cash, and defendant’s criminal history — also possible DUI for drug impairment | Possession of <½ oz. marijuana is decriminalized and cannot furnish probable cause; relying on minor civil marijuana offense insufficient | Court applied totality of circumstances; decriminalization does not preclude using smell/roach plus other facts to establish probable cause for contraband or evidence of criminal activity (e.g., DWI or drug distribution); search upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (authorizes brief investigatory stops and limited patdowns for officer safety)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (Fourth Amendment challenge focuses on defendant’s legitimate expectation of privacy rather than formal standing)
- Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980) (legitimate expectation of privacy as the proper Fourth Amendment inquiry)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (automobile exception: probable cause can justify warrantless vehicle searches)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (officers may not extend a traffic stop beyond mission absent reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Winfrey, 302 Conn. 195 (2011) (Connecticut discussion of automobile exception and reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles)
- State v. Kinch, 168 Conn. App. 62 (2016) (defendant’s burden to prove reasonable expectation of privacy when a passenger)
- State v. Batts, 281 Conn. 682 (2007) (probable cause assessed under totality of circumstances; innocence of some conduct does not preclude probable cause)