State v. Lewis, 162 A.3d 775

Background

At ~4:20–4:30 a.m., Officer Milton DeJesus (uniformed, in marked cruiser) was dispatched to a nearby 911 report of a domestic assault; caller described a black male "in all black" and named "Antoine." DeJesus arrived within minutes and saw the defendant a block from the scene, standing alone in the rain and talking on a cell phone.
From the cruiser (15–20 feet away) DeJesus called to the defendant; the defendant did not clearly respond. DeJesus exited, approached at an angle, asked for identification, and perceived mumbling, swaying, guarded stance, and possible intoxication.
DeJesus conducted a brief patdown (a ‘‘sweep’’) for weapons; while touching the waistband he felt and removed a 9mm handgun; a struggle and arrest followed.
Defendant moved to suppress the gun, arguing the initial encounter was an unlawful seizure and the patdown lacked reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous.
Trial court (Cradle, J.) denied suppression: it found no seizure until DeJesus physically touched the defendant; held there was reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop given proximity to the crime, similar clothing in the dark/rain, timing, location, and evasive behavior; and that the patdown was justified by officer safety concerns.
Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to pistol offenses and appealed the denial of suppression; Appellate Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Lewis's Argument	Held
Whether defendant was seized when DeJesus stopped his cruiser and called to him (or when DeJesus exited and approached)	No seizure occurred until physical contact; initial contact from cruiser and approach were noncoercive and casual	Seizure occurred when cruiser stopped and/or when officer exited and approached in an isolated, early‑morning setting	No seizure at cruiser call or merely by approach; seizure occurred only when officer physically touched defendant
Whether officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop/detain defendant	Yes: close temporal/spatial proximity to assault, clothing appearing dark in rain, location in high crime area, and defendant’s evasive/mumbling behavior justified brief investigatory stop	Insufficient: clothing did not actually match 911 description and behavior alone did not supply reasonable suspicion	Held reasonable suspicion existed under the totality of circumstances (time/place, clothing perception, proximity to scene, behavior)
Whether officer had reasonable basis to patdown for weapons (belief defendant was armed and dangerous)	Yes: violent assault report + proximity + matching appearance in low light + suspicious behavior and possible intoxication supported a reasonable fear for officer safety	No: discrepancy in clothing and intoxicated appearance cannot alone justify belief defendant was armed/dangerous	Patdown was reasonable; under the circumstances a prudent officer could conclude defendant might be armed and dangerous, justifying weapon sweep and seizure

Key Cases Cited

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (permits brief investigatory stops on reasonable suspicion and limited weapon patdowns for officer safety)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (factors that may indicate a seizure include display of force, physical touching, tone or language implying compulsion)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (use‑of‑force reasonableness judged from perspective of reasonable officer on scene; allowance for split‑second decisions)
State v. Burroughs, 288 Conn. 836 (2008) (uniform or approach alone does not automatically constitute a seizure; factors to assess show of authority)
State v. Oquendo, 223 Conn. 635 (1992) (appellate review standard for suppression rulings: factual findings are given deference unless clearly erroneous)
State v. Butler, 296 Conn. 62 (2010) (collective knowledge doctrine applies to reasonable suspicion/probable cause analyses)
State v. Kelly, 313 Conn. 1 (2014) (discusses Terry framework and officer safety justification for patdowns)
State v. Jenkins, 298 Conn. 209 (2010) (patdown authority requires particularized facts supporting belief suspect is armed and dangerous)