200 Conn.App. 13
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background:
- 911 call from neighbor Anthony Cruz reporting a suspected break‑in, loud altercation, and what he believed were gunshots; Cruz also reported finding a knife in the building's laundry room.
- Officer Raim Zulali arrived, was admitted by Cruz, and corroborated multiple facts: pry marks and paint chips at the defendant's apartment door, disturbed laundry room, a spent shell casing, a bullet hole/ricochet marks, and a fresh blood‑like stain.
- Cruz told police he thought a resident of the defendant's apartment had been involved; the defendant’s vehicle remained parked at the building; officers knocked but received no response and could not see inside because blinds were closed.
- About one hour after arrival, officers forced entry into the apartment without a warrant to search for any injured occupant; they observed inculpatory evidence in plain view, later seized under a warrant, and the defendant was charged with drug offenses.
- At trial the court found Zulali and Cruz credible and denied the defendant’s motion to suppress; on appeal the majority disagreed, but Justice Prescott (dissenting) concludes the entry was justified under the emergency doctrine and would affirm the denial of suppression.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers' warrantless entry was justified under the emergency doctrine (was there an objectively reasonable belief of an emergency in Curet’s apartment?) | State: 911 report of break‑in with suspected gunfire, physical evidence (pry marks, shell casing, bullet hole, blood‑like stain), locked unit with resident vehicle, and no response made it reasonable to believe someone inside was injured and in need of aid | Curet: Evidence did not objectively tie an injured person to her apartment; no visible injured person, limited direct evidence linking the apartment to the injuries, and the one‑hour lapse undercuts urgency | Prescott, J. (dissent): Would hold the entry reasonable under the emergency doctrine and affirm the denial of the motion to suppress |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blades, 225 Conn. 609 (recognizes emergency‑circumstances exception and the objective test for officers' belief)
- State v. DeMarco, 311 Conn. 510 (addresses standard of review and reasonableness based on facts known at time of entry)
- State v. Fausel, 295 Conn. 785 (notes that burglary carries potential for violence supporting caretaking concerns)
- State v. Kendrick, 314 Conn. 212 (explains scope and limits of emergency doctrine tied to community caretaking)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (recognizes officers often act in tense, uncertain, rapidly evolving circumstances when evaluating exigency/emergency exceptions)