State v. Buie
129 Conn. App. 777
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- LB, a sexual assault victim, moved into an adjacent apartment to Buie; she encounters Martin, Buie’s girlfriend, about a month later.
- On Nov. 18–19, 2006, LB is assaulted in her apartment by Buie and Martin; police later learn of the incident and gather initial information.
- Police, believing Martin had access and common authority over Buie’s apartment, accompany her into the unit before obtaining a warrant.
- LB is transported for medical examination; police later obtain a search warrant and seize items from Buie’s apartment.
- Buie is arrested in Jan. 2007 and charged with multiple counts; in Oct. 2008, Buie moves to suppress evidence, asserting lack of authority for the entry.
- Court denies suppression in Oct. 2008; trial proceeds; Buie is convicted in Nov. 2008 and sentenced in Jan. 2009.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of apparent authority doctrine under CT Constitution | Buie asserts CT art. 1, § 7 bars apparent authority. | State contends doctrine aligns with CT constitution as reasonable entry. | Constitutional; doctrine compatible with CT constitution |
| Golding review to preserve unpreserved claim | Buie argues unpreserved CT claim should be reviewable under Golding. | State contends Golding applies but prongs fail for constitutional violation. | Golding prongs 1–2 satisfied; prong 3 not met |
| Tribunals’ evaluation of apparent authority factors | Buie challenges reliance on Martin’s claimed common authority as reasonable. | State relies on Rodriguez factors and Martin’s statements showing common authority. | Court finds reasonable belief based on Martin’s statements and conduct; no violation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (Supreme Court, 1974) (establishes third-party consent as valid where common authority exists)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (Supreme Court, 1990) (apparent authority doctrine applied under reasonable belief of common authority)
- State v. Vazquez, 87 Conn. App. 792 (Conn. App. 2005) (appears to apply apparent authority without adopting Rodriguez explicitly)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (Supreme Court, 2006) (co-tenant presence does not bar entry where apparent authority exists)
- State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672 (Conn. 1992) (six-factor framework for CT constitutional interpretation)
- State v. Tomas D., 296 Conn. 476 (Conn. 2010) (Geisler factors applied to assess CT constitutional protections)
- State v. Jenkins, 298 Conn. 209 (Conn. 2010) (CT constitutional interpretation aligned with federal analogies; broad protections described)
- State v. Marsala, 216 Conn. 150 (Conn. 1990) (good faith exception to exclusionary rule rejected under CT constitution)
- State v. Reagan, 209 Conn. 1 (Conn. 1988) (consent-based warrantless searches permitted when authority be freely given)