168 Conn. App. 62
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- On July 12, 2011, Bridgeport police conducting surveillance in a high-crime area observed a man with a distinctive gait meet three people and enter a parked Toyota Scion; officers in a marked car were ordered to stop parties in the lot.
- Officers approached the vehicle, saw movement inside, and from outside the car observed contraband on the rear passenger floor (digital scale, plastic bag with an off-white substance, a cigarette containing contraband, and a paper bag with cigar tubes).
- All three occupants exited the vehicle and were arrested; various items were seized from the car.
- Defendant Phil Kinch (rear passenger) was charged with possession with intent to sell (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-278(b)); he moved to suppress the seized evidence, alleging unlawful stop/search and lack of reasonable suspicion.
- At the suppression hearing the state argued defendant lacked standing to challenge the vehicle search; the trial court denied the state’s standing motion and denied the suppression motion on the merits. A jury convicted Kinch; he later missed sentencing, was convicted of failure to appear, and received consecutive sentences.
- On appeal the state conceded the stop lacked reasonable suspicion, but argued the conviction should stand because Kinch lacked standing (no reasonable expectation of privacy) to challenge the vehicle search.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Kinch's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kinch had standing to challenge the vehicle search | Kinch, as a backseat passenger who offered no possessory interest or evidence of privacy, lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy and thus standing | Brendlin entitles passengers to challenge the seizure of their person and, implicitly, to contest related searches | Court held Kinch lacked standing because he presented no evidence of a subjective or objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched; suppression denial upheld on that ground |
| Whether the investigatory stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | Conceded on appeal that the seizure of occupants was not supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion | Argued stop/search were unlawful and evidence should be suppressed | Court did not reach the merits because lack of standing was dispositive; affirmed convictions |
| Whether contraband in plain view affects expectation of privacy | Officers observed contraband from outside, so no legitimate expectation of privacy in those items/area | Challenged legality of search and seizure of contraband | Court noted plain view doctrine: no expectation of privacy in contraband visible from outside, supporting lack of standing |
| Whether failure to appear conviction depends on overturned narcotics conviction | State: failure-to-appear conviction independent if underlying conviction stands | Kinch: if narcotics conviction overturned, failure-to-appear must be vacated as derivative | Because standing challenge failed and narcotics conviction affirmed, failure-to-appear conviction also affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passenger is "seized" during a vehicle stop and may challenge the constitutionality of the detention)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (standing to challenge a search requires a legitimate expectation of privacy)
- Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983) (no legitimate expectation of privacy in portions of an automobile visible from outside)
- State v. Thomas, 98 Conn. App. 542 (2006) (passenger who does not demonstrate possessory interest lacks standing to challenge vehicle search)
- State v. Gonzalez, 278 Conn. 341 (2006) (defendant bears burden to show reasonable expectation of privacy to invoke Fourth Amendment protection)
- State v. Boyd, 295 Conn. 707 (2010) (reasonable expectation of privacy is required for standing to contest searches)
- State v. Kimble, 106 Conn. App. 572 (2008) (passengers who do not claim or show possessory interest generally lack reasonable expectation of privacy)