129 Conn. App. 552
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Bridgeport narcotics unit investigated Williston and Bunnell Streets area on July 15, 2008 and targeted a tan Honda Accord driven by Patricia Armstrong.
- Armstrong was stopped; a sandwich baggie containing narcotics was observed and heroin was recovered from her pants; Armstrong was arrested.
- Armstrong verbally consented to a search of her apartment after being read Miranda rights; a consent-to-search form was signed and witnessed.
- Police went to 581 Connecticut Avenue, found Robert Brown in Armstrong's bedroom; Brown claimed the heroin was his and signed a separate consent-to-search form.
- Twenty-seven bags of heroin were recovered from a bag of uncooked rice in a storage bin inside the apartment; the court denied the motion to suppress.
- Brown pled nolo contendere with a conditional right to appeal the suppression ruling; the appellate issue centered on Armstrong's standing and voluntariness of consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge Armstrong's consent | State argues Armstrong had standing as a resident of the apartment. | Brown contends lack of standing to challenge Armstrong's consent. | Armstrong had standing to challenge the consent. |
| Voluntariness of Armstrong's consent to search | State contends consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances. | Brown argues coercive conditions (detention, multiple officers, timing) rendered consent involuntary. | Consent was voluntary; totality of circumstances did not show coercion. |
| Effect of number of officers and custody on voluntariness | State asserts presence of officers and custody did not improperly coerce Armstrong. | Brown asserts multiple officers and custody undermine voluntariness. | Even with several officers, voluntariness remained intact. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenkins, 298 Conn. 209 (2010) (burden to prove voluntariness by preponderance; totality of circumstances)
- State v. Azukas, 278 Conn. 267 (2006) (proper standard for review of suppression findings)
- State v. Courchesne, 296 Conn. 622 (2010) (fact-specific totality-of-circumstances test for voluntariness)
- United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) (custody alone not enough to render consent involuntary)
- United States v. Comstock, 531 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2008) (handcuffed defendant may still give voluntary consent)
- State v. Winot, 95 Conn.App. 332 (2006) (contrast on voluntariness with handcuffed suspects)
- State v. Stephenson, 99 Conn.App. 591 (2007) (handcuffs as a factor, not controlling)