State v. Houghtaling
163 A.3d 563
Conn.2017Background
- Police helicopter spotted a large marijuana grow at 41 Raymond Schoolhouse Road; ground team in unmarked vehicles approached and found >1000 plants, including inside an unfinished greenhouse where two men (one renter, Phravixay) were encountered. Phravixay consented in writing to search.
- While officers were processing the scene, a white van (driven by Houghtaling) entered the property, reversed out quickly, and parked shortly thereafter facing the property; officers pursued and detained the van’s occupants.
- Officers observed lumber and irrigation piping in plain view in the van similar to materials used at the greenhouse; Houghtaling gave evasive answers, was handcuffed, returned to the property, Mirandized, and then admitted he owned the house, had leased it to Phravixay, and had helped cultivate marijuana for several months.
- Houghtaling, owner of the property who had leased it to Phravixay, moved to suppress the search evidence and his statements as fruits of an unlawful, warrantless search and an illegal stop/arrest. He produced no witnesses or documentary lease evidence at the suppression hearing.
- Trial court denied the motion to suppress (finding no subjective expectation of privacy in the leased property, Terry stop justified, and probable cause for arrest). Appellate Court affirmed; Supreme Court granted certification and affirmed the Appellate Court.
Issues
| Issue | Houghtaling's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge warrantless search (subjective expectation of privacy) | Ownership of property alone suffices; he retained privacy interest despite leasing | Owner who leases generally loses expectation of privacy unless evidence shows retained control, presence, or exclusory rights | Court held Houghtaling lacked sufficient evidence of a subjective expectation of privacy (mere ownership, some mail, one personal item, and unproven participation in grow insufficient) |
| Admissibility of statements as fruits of the alleged unlawful stop/arrest | Statements were tainted by unlawful Terry stop and warrantless arrest, so must be suppressed | Stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion; arrest was supported by probable cause (collective knowledge, items in van, evasive answers) | Court held stop was lawful (totality of circumstances: entry/rapid exit from active grow site) and arrest was supported by probable cause (plain view materials + evasive responses) |
| Validity of applying Boyd three-factor test for subjective expectation | Boyd factors used by Appellate Court require showing personal, regular, private connection to location | Boyd is not a rigid or universally applicable test; subjective prong should focus on conduct demonstrating intent to keep property private | Court overruled Boyd to the extent it imposed a rigid three-prong test; reaffirmed a flexible Katz-based subjective inquiry (conduct showing intent to preserve privacy) |
| Whether participation in criminal activity can establish standing | His admitted helping with cultivation created a privacy interest in the property | Criminal conduct does not, by itself, create standing absent independent evidence of privacy interest | Court held even if criminal participation could theoretically support standing, Houghtaling failed to prove the extent of his involvement, so standing not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (establishes subjective and objective prongs for reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Fourth Amendment rights are personal; only those whose own protection was infringed may challenge a search)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (authorizes brief investigatory stops on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
- State v. Boyd, 57 Conn. App. 176 (Conn. App. test requiring three factors for subjective expectation of privacy; court overruled to the extent it imposed a rigid test)
- United States v. Gerena, 662 F. Supp. 1218 (district court decision that influenced Boyd’s formulation of subjective-prong factors)
- State v. Davis, 283 Conn. 280 (rejects mechanical tests for reasonable expectation of privacy and emphasizes case-by-case analysis)