319 Conn. 218
Conn.2015Background
- Police obtained a warrant to search Flores’s apartment based on an affidavit reporting an in-person tip from an untested informant arrested on unrelated motor-vehicle charges.
- The informant told officers he regularly bought one or two small bags of marijuana every ~3 days for the past month or two from 215 Camp Street, 3rd floor, from a dealer called “John” with long hair; his last purchase was four days before his statement.
- The affidavit contained no corroboration by police (no surveillance, controlled buy, or physical sample) and did not describe the informant’s demeanor or the officer’s basis for crediting him.
- The informant’s admission implicated him only in minor marijuana possession offenses (now infractions), making prosecution unlikely and reducing the statement’s exposure to penal risk.
- Justice Zarella (dissenting, joined by two justices) argued the affidavit relied solely on an uncorroborated statement-against-interest that lacked detail and indicia of reliability, so it did not establish probable cause to issue the warrant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an uncorroborated in-person statement against penal interest can alone establish probable cause for a search warrant | Informant’s face-to-face admission and implication of criminal conduct make the tip reliable | Statement lacked meaningful detail, exposed informant to little real risk of prosecution, and had no police corroboration | Dissent: such an uncorroborated, low-risk admission is insufficient to establish probable cause |
| Whether the affidavit provided sufficient indicia of informant credibility | Presence of in-person statement and identification of address and dealer name supported issuing judge’s deference | Affidavit omitted officer observations, corroboration, and probative detail showing personal knowledge | Dissent: affidavit failed to supply facts enabling a magistrate’s independent judgment |
| Whether the informant’s admission was inherently trustworthy because it was against penal interest | Admission of repeated purchases suggests self-inculpation and potential reliability | Low-level marijuana possession carried little prosecution risk; statement was vague so unlikely to be a true penal-risk admission | Dissent: minor offense and vagueness undercut the statement-against-interest rationale |
| Whether police should have taken additional steps (surveillance, controlled buy, follow-up questions) before seeking a warrant | Issuing judge may rely on totality of circumstances and afford deference to officers | Failure to corroborate or elicit detail undermined probable cause; police did none of these commonly accepted steps | Dissent: police inaction meant affidavit did not rise above rumor/suspicion to probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barton, 219 Conn. 529 (1991) (upheld warrant where informant provided detailed account and delivered a marijuana sample corroborating his tip)
- State v. Ferguson, 185 Conn. 104 (1981) (identified factors for assessing informant reliability, including statement-against-interest and corroboration)
- State v. Johnson, 286 Conn. 427 (2008) (affidavit upheld where police corroborated informant via a controlled buy)
- State v. Batts, 281 Conn. 682 (2007) (warrant supported by verification of details, including surveillance and a controlled purchase)
- United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 (1971) (plurality refused to endorse warrants based solely on an informant’s incriminating statement absent corroboration)
- State v. Jackson, 162 Conn. 440 (1972) (magistrate must receive sufficient underlying facts in an affidavit to make an independent probable-cause determination)