155 Conn. App. 794
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- State narcotics task force (air crew + ground team) observed a large outdoor marijuana grow at 41 Raymond Schoolhouse Rd., Canterbury; officers approached the property after aerial confirmation.
- Officers encountered two men in a greenhouse; one identified himself as renting the house and later consented to search.
- A white van driven by the defendant pulled into the driveway, backed out quickly upon noticing police, turned around and parked shortly thereafter; officers stopped the van, saw lumber/irrigation piping in plain view, handcuffed and transported the defendant back to the property.
- At the property the defendant (owned the house but lived ~2 hours away and had rented it to Phravixay) signed a waiver/statement after being Mirandized and admitted some involvement in cultivating marijuana.
- Defendant moved to suppress evidence, statements, and fruits of the search; trial court denied the motion; defendant entered a conditional nolo contendere plea to two marijuana counts and appealed the suppression denial.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Houghtaling's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / expectation of privacy in searched property | Houghtaling failed to show personal, nonsporadic possession or private control; tenant resided there and defendant lived elsewhere | Ownership + occasional mail/materials/repairs gave him a reasonable expectation of privacy | Court: No standing — defendant did not prove subjective expectation of privacy; suppression denied |
| Warrantless search of property (curtilage / Fourth Amendment) | Not reached on merits because defendant lacked standing | Search violated Fourth Amendment and curtilage protections | Court: Did not reach curtilage issue; denial stands because no reasonable expectation of privacy was shown |
| Vehicle stop: reasonable and articulable suspicion (Terry) | Officers had reasonable suspicion: defendant entered known grow site, fled quickly, parked nearby facing property; totality justified stop | Driving into driveway then leaving and parking on road is innocent; no traffic violation observed — insufficient suspicion | Court: Stop justified — proximity to active felony investigation + unprovoked/evasive flight and other facts support suspicion |
| Probable cause for arrest and voluntariness of statement | Plain-view materials in van (lumber/irrigation) matched greenhouse materials; evasive answers; defendant Mirandized, waived rights and gave voluntary statement | Officer lacked personal knowledge of greenhouse materials before arrest; waiver not specific (no initials); statement coerced by officers’ comments | Court: Probable cause existed (nexus between materials and grow); Miranda warning given and waiver valid; statement voluntary — suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (recognition of standing framework tied to reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (requirement to advise of rights before custodial interrogation)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (authority for brief investigative stops based on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (unprovoked flight as factor supporting reasonable suspicion)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (silence after Miranda warning does not automatically preserve right; making an uncoerced statement can constitute waiver)
- State v. Hill, 237 Conn. 81 (two-part subjective/objective test for expectation of privacy/standing)
- State v. Boyd, 57 Conn. App. 176 (factors to establish subjective expectation of privacy)