State v. Edmonds, 145 A.3d 861

Background

On Jan. 28, 2011, three uniformed officers in two marked cruisers approached Michael Edmonds, who was standing alone in a small, unlit private parking lot behind a Subway in Bridgeport; officers had been patrolling a nearby high‑crime area for a school event.
Officers Morales and Lawlor saw Edmonds briefly from a cruiser, radioed Sergeant Mercado for "cover," and all three vehicles entered the lot from opposite directions and converged near Edmonds.
As Edmonds began to walk away from the first cruiser, Mercado (according to Morales and the incident report) verbally commanded him to stop; officers then ordered Edmonds to keep his hands visible, and conducted a pat‑down for officer safety after observing movements near his waistband.
The pat‑down uncovered a heroin bundle and Edmonds was arrested; he moved to suppress the narcotics as fruits of an unconstitutional seizure/search; the trial court denied suppression and Edmonds entered a conditional nolo contendere plea preserving the suppression issue.
The Appellate Court upheld denial of suppression, concluding Edmonds was not seized until the pat‑down and that the record was inadequate to review his claim that Mercado’s verbal command constituted a seizure.
The Connecticut Supreme Court (majority) reversed: it held Edmonds was seized no later than when Mercado commanded him to stop and that the officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the seizure or subsequent frisk; suppression should have been granted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Edmonds)	Held
Whether Edmonds was seized when cruisers converged in parking lot or when officer verbally commanded him to stop	No seizure until officers performed pat‑down; pre‑patdown approach was a benign, consensual encounter	Seized when cruisers converged and at latest when Mercado commanded him to stop	Edmonds was seized no later than Mercado’s verbal command; seizure occurred before pat‑down
Whether the record adequately preserved/reveals the claim that Mercado’s command was a seizure	Claim unpreserved; record inadequate for appellate review	Claim preserved by defense arguments at suppression hearing and by undisputed officer testimony	Claim reviewable; Morales’ and report’s uncontested testimony that Mercado ordered stop may be considered on review
Whether officers had reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify investigatory stop/frisk at time of seizure	Officers had reasonable suspicion (loitering in high‑crime area, furtive waistband movement, prior robberies at location)	Presence alone, brief walking away, and ambiguous waistband movement insufficient to create reasonable suspicion	No reasonable, articulable suspicion existed at time of seizure; seizure and subsequent discovery of narcotics violated Fourth Amendment and Connecticut constitution
Remedy / disposition	Affirm denial of suppression and conviction	Suppress narcotics, reverse conviction	Reverse Appellate Court; remand directing trial court to grant motion to suppress

Key Cases Cited

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes investigatory stop standard requiring reasonable, articulable suspicion)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (defines seizure as restraint by physical force or show of authority; totality‑of‑circumstances test)
State v. Burroughs, 288 Conn. 836 (2008) (requires scrupulous appellate review of seizure claims and lists coercion factors)
State v. Benton, 304 Conn. 838 (2012) (discusses when verbal command or police positioning constitutes a seizure)
State v. Mann, 271 Conn. 300 (2004) (waistband/furtive movements can contribute to reasonable suspicion in context)
State v. Oquendo, 223 Conn. 635 (1992) (explores historical/common‑law understanding of confinement and seizure under state constitution)
State v. DeMarco, 311 Conn. 510 (2014) (courts must consider undisputed officer testimony that undercuts trial court rulings)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (Fourth Amendment seizure occurs only upon submission to show of authority or physical force)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (headlong flight can contribute to reasonable suspicion)
State v. Januszewski, 182 Conn. 142 (1978) (blocking egress can effectuate a seizure)