340 Conn. 619
Conn.2022Background
- Police surveilled a motel after observing Eudy Taveras enter room 118 briefly at 1:20 a.m.; they stopped the vehicle he left in and found marijuana and heroin residue on Taveras.
- Officers searched Taveras’s bedroom with his grandmother’s consent and found drug packaging; motel records showed the room was rented in the defendant Correa’s name and also listed a Taveras.
- A canine (Cooper) alerted repeatedly at the exterior door of room 118 during a sniff of the motel walkway.
- Officers detained Correa nearby, found $3,600 cash and a motel key on him; he refused to consent to entry. An officer used Correa’s key to open the door briefly, conducted a visual sweep (15–30 seconds) from the threshold, observed drug paraphernalia, then closed the door.
- Police then obtained a warrant based on the canine alert, the visual sweep observations, and Taveras’s later admission; execution of the warrant yielded large quantities of heroin and other drug‑related evidence. Correa moved to suppress; trial court denied suppression. Appellate Court affirmed; Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Correa) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless canine sniff at the exterior door of a motel room is a “search” under Conn. Const. art. I, § 7 | Sniff was not a search (or if it was, reasonable suspicion sufficed); motel walkways are public and sniff only detects contraband | Canine sniff targeted defendant’s lodging and therefore invaded a reasonable expectation of privacy; requires a warrant supported by probable cause | Sniff is a search under art. I, § 7 and requires a warrant supported by probable cause |
| Whether the canine sniff could be upheld on the record as an independent source (i.e., warrant would have been sought absent the sniff) | Evidence independent of the sniff (surveillance, items on Taveras, motel records, Correa’s cash/key/statement) sufficed to establish probable cause and the officers would have sought a warrant anyway | The warrant relied in part on sniff and related events; state did not develop record below proving they would have sought a warrant absent the sniff | Facts independent of sniff supported probable cause, but record was inadequate to decide whether officers would have sought a warrant absent the sniff; remand required so state can prove independent source |
| Whether the evidence would be admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine | Police were actively pursuing a warrant and would have obtained one even without the sniff or the visual sweep; Taveras’s later admission was untainted | Taveras only confessed after sniff; state cannot prove with high confidence he would have made same statement absent the sniff | Court cannot resolve inevitable discovery as a matter of law on the record; remand so state may present additional evidence on inevitability |
| Whether the brief warrantless visual sweep (opening the door and looking inside) was justified by exigent circumstances to prevent destruction of evidence | Officers reasonably feared accomplices might be alerted and destroy evidence; light on and no answer supported concern | Neither Correa nor Taveras could have destroyed evidence; nothing objectively supported belief someone else was inside and likely to destroy evidence | Visual sweep was not justified by exigent circumstances; any independent‑source claim tied to the sweep requires remand and must be evaluated in light of the unlawful canine sniff |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kono, 324 Conn. 80 (Conn. 2016) (canine sniff at door of condominium in multiunit complex is a search under art. I, § 7 and requires a warrant)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2013) (police use of a drug‑detection dog on a home’s front porch is a search under the Fourth Amendment)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (U.S. 2005) (canine sniff of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop is not a search under Fourth Amendment because it reveals only contraband)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1983) (canine sniff of luggage at an airport is not a search because it discloses only presence of contraband)
- State v. Benton, 206 Conn. 90 (Conn. 1988) (hotel/motel guests retain Fourth Amendment protections and a reasonable expectation of privacy in rented rooms)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1988) (independent source doctrine: evidence initially discovered unlawfully may be admitted if warrant was sought on an independent, untainted basis and would have been sought absent the illegality)
- State v. Brown, 331 Conn. 258 (Conn. 2019) (describing standards for inevitable discovery, emphasizing proof of demonstrated historical facts and high confidence in contingencies)
- State v. Brunetti, 279 Conn. 39 (Conn. 2006) (limitations on appellate review of unpreserved claims when record is inadequate; remand generally not permitted)