State v. DeMarco, 88 A.3d 491

Defendant was convicted of two counts of cruelty to animals; motion to suppress from warrantless entry denied and appealed.
Police entered the defendant’s home October 21, 2007 without a warrant under the emergency doctrine; trial court found the entry permissible.
Animal control officer Cobb observed a putrid odor, overflowing mailbox, unattended notices, and dogs barking inside, with an ajar door and disarray around the premises.
Barcello and backup officers conducted a perimeter check, sought emergency assistance from the Stamford Fire Department, and entered with protective gear to assess the odor and potential danger.
Appellate Court reversed, concluding the trial court’s findings on immediacy and defendant’s cell phone number were clearly erroneous and that the emergency exception did not justify entry.
This Court granted certification to decide whether the Appellate Court properly reversed the suppression ruling and clarified the appropriate standard of review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of review for suppression orders under emergency doctrine	State contends scrupulous review was proper; trial findings should receive deference.	DeMarco argues Appellate Court correctly applied scrupulous review and deferred to trial court findings.	Court adopts de novo review of legal conclusions with scrupulous review of factual findings.
Whether trial court clearly erred in finding Barcello lacked the defendant’s cell phone number	Barcello could not obtain the number due to immediacy; findings supported the emergency.	Appellate Court erred in discrediting the trial court’s factual findings on availability of the number.	Trial court findings were not clearly erroneous; cannot rely on collective knowledge to negate immediacy.
Whether the emergency exception to the warrant requirement justified entry	Circumstances showed an imminent threat to safety; entry was reasonable.	No emergency existed warranting a warrantless entry; Appellate Court’s analysis was correct.	No; the trial court’s conclusion that an emergency existed was not sustained by the record upon scrupulous review; Appellate Court’s ruling reversed.

State v. Ryder, 301 Conn. 810 (2011) (establishes de novo review of legal conclusions under emergency doctrine)
State v. Fausel, 295 Conn. 785 (2010) (articulates objective test for emergency doctrine and caretaking function)
State v. Aviles, 277 Conn. 281 (2006) (framework for objective reasonableness in emergency entries)
State v. Guertin, 190 Conn. 440 (1983) (early articulation of fourth amendment considerations in CT)
State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106 (2004) (recognizes non-direct evidence of emergency; totality of the circumstances)