314 Conn. 212
Conn.2014Background
- Police received a cell‑phone "ping" (GPS/triangulation data) from New Jersey investigators that generally placed a phone thought to be associated with murder suspect Malik Singer in the vicinity of 239 Knickerbocker Avenue, Stamford, sometime in the ~41 hours before police arrived. The subpoena/underlying ping data and methodology were not introduced at the suppression hearing.
- Stamford officers investigated the building at midnight the day after the murder; their knowledge was limited to a generalized GPS area and a single descriptive trait: Singer is black.
- A landlord/concerned citizen told officers that a Hispanic tenant’s daughter had recently been keeping company with a black man; officers did not obtain timing detail, compare photos, or elicit distinctive features (e.g., Singer’s facial tattoo).
- Officers knocked on the third‑floor apartment door; after entry (the record is disputed whether entry was with consent), tenant Blanca Valvo told officers the daughter was in a bedroom with two African‑American males and (according to some testimony) pointed to the bedroom.
- Police entered the bedroom and found two Black men; the trial court ruled exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry; the dissent argues the state failed to prove exigency given the paucity and ambiguity of the evidence linking Singer to that specific apartment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GPS "ping" data narrowed location sufficiently to justify warrantless entry | Ping provided GPS coordinates narrowing search to the building/third floor, supporting exigency | Ping was generalized, not linked to a specific apartment; subpoena and ping details not produced | Dissent: insufficient evidence that ping tied suspect to that apartment; trial court relied on erroneous factual assumptions |
| Whether pre‑entry information established exigent circumstances | Combined ping + landlord tip + suspect description created reasonable belief suspect was inside and dangerous | Tip and description (only skin color) were too vague and temporally indeterminate to create exigency | Dissent: facts known pre‑entry did not objectively support exigency |
| Whether Valvo’s statements after entry created exigency | Valvo indicated two Black men in bedroom; that confirmed possible presence and supported protective entry/search | Her statement only confirmed two Black men; did not identify Singer or provide time frame—insufficient to raise reasonable belief one was Singer | Dissent: post‑entry statements added nothing material to justify entry; remand for further findings would be appropriate if ambiguity persisted |
| Whether courts may uphold warrantless entry on any reasonable view of the evidence | State urges deference—uphold if any reasonable view supports trial court | Kendrick argues state must bear burden to produce proof of exigency; appellate court should not accept speculative inferences | Dissent: appellate court should not sustain exigency where record lacks objective support; state failed its burden |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Guertin, 190 Conn. 440 (Conn. 1983) (exigency assessed under totality of circumstances; objective reasonable‑officer test)
- United States v. Creighton, 639 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2011) (appellate review may affirm on any reasonable view of the evidence)
- People v. Barnes, 216 Cal. App. 4th 1508 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (pinging produced a generalized location and subsequent pings can show movement)
- United States v. Skinner, 690 F.3d 772 (6th Cir. 2012) (continuous pinging can track a phone’s interstate movement)
- In re Application of United States, 727 F. Supp. 2d 571 (W.D. Tex. 2010) (discussing precision of GPS vs. cell‑tower triangulation and typical accuracy ranges)