193 Conn.App. 95
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background:
- Police investigated an alleged kidnapping and assault at 830 Slater Road; one victim was hospitalized and reported the defendant had firearms and people watching his house.
- Plainclothes detectives surveilled the house; officers observed the defendant exit/reenter several times, walk near a black Cadillac whose lights flashed and engine briefly ran, and later arrested him near the front fence.
- After the arrest officers conducted a brief warrantless protective sweep of the home; the next day search warrants for the residence and the Cadillac produced firearms, ammunition and drugs.
- The state charged the defendant in two separate informations (kidnapping/assault; weapons/drugs), moved to join them for trial, the court granted joinder, and denied the defendant’s motion to suppress.
- A jury acquitted the defendant of the kidnapping/assault counts but convicted on the weapons/drug counts; the defendant appealed, challenging suppression, joinder, and judicial bias.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cane) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of warrantless protective sweep of the home | Officers had articulable facts (movement inside, multiple vehicles, report of guns, serious assault victims, defendant’s erratic behavior) supporting a Buie second‑tier sweep | No basis to believe any third party was inside; sweep unlawful | Sweep upheld: facts and reasonable inferences supported belief someone dangerous might be inside; protective sweep justified under Buie |
| Constructive seizure / constructive entry | State relied on record; argued claim unpreserved and record inadequate to show Payton/constructive entry | Police effectively coerced defendant out of the house (constructive entry/seizure), triggering Payton protections | Claim fails Golding first prong: record insufficient to determine if coercive show of force occurred; not reviewable on the merits |
| Probable cause for vehicle search warrant | Affidavit reported defendant walked to the Cadillac and officers heard the remote alarm; reasonable to infer he had access and could have moved evidence to vehicle | No officer saw defendant open the car or place items in it; warrant lacked probable cause | Warrant valid: issuing judge reasonably could infer defendant had access to vehicle and might have moved evidence there; probable cause satisfied |
| Joinder of the two informations / effect on defendant’s decision to testify | Joinder was proper; defendant expressly waived objection to joinder; no severance requested and evidence supporting defense could be presented without his testimony | Joinder prejudiced defendant by forcing an all‑or‑nothing decision about testifying (wanted to testify on weapons counts but not assault/kidnapping) | No plain error: defendant waived objection; even if reviewable, he failed to show manifest injustice or make the required showing for severance/testifying selectively |
| Judicial bias / use of acquitted conduct at sentencing | Court summarized background and referenced original allegations but focused on arrest‑day conduct and defendant’s history | Court demonstrated bias by calling accusers "victims" pretrial and relied on acquitted kidnapping/assault conduct at sentencing | No bias: references to "victims" were not to the jury; sentencing relied on presentence report, arrest‑day behavior, and defendant’s history; no reversible bias or manifest injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (establishes two tiers of protective sweeps; second tier requires articulable facts to believe area harbors a dangerous person)
- State v. Spencer, 268 Conn. 575 (2004) (applies Buie principles where arrest occurs just outside the home)
- State v. Kendrick, 314 Conn. 212 (2014) (discusses warrant exceptions and standards for exigent/protective sweeps)
- State v. Shields, 308 Conn. 678 (2013) (warrant probable cause review; review limited to facts before the issuing judge)
- State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802 (2017) (plain error review and limits of waiver for appellate review)
- State v. Perez, 322 Conn. 118 (2016) (standard for severance when defendant wishes to testify on some counts but not others)
- United States v. Allen, 813 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2016) (constructive entry doctrine; factors courts consider)
- United States v. Morgan, 743 F.2d 1158 (6th Cir. 1984) (show‑of‑force test: whether a reasonable person would have believed they were not free to leave)
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (sentencing courts may consider acquitted conduct if proven by a preponderance of the evidence)