State v. Liam M., 176 Conn. App. 807

On Oct. 4, 2014 the complainant reported that Liam M. struck her with a gray PVC pipe (after the defendant allegedly threw wood and she used an umbrella as a shield); she later gave a written statement and police photographed a bruise on her hip.
Officers Gaspar and DiCocco went to the defendant’s home hours later; Gaspar stepped over the threshold to prevent the door from closing and the defendant was arrested inside the foyer without a warrant.
The defendant was transported to the station, Mirandized at 1:34 a.m., and made custodial statements admitting he struck the complainant with a “metal tube.” He was later charged with assault in the second degree (dangerous instrument) and disorderly conduct.
At trial the complainant and defendant denied the incident; the complainant’s written statement and photographs were admitted; jury convicted the defendant of second‑degree assault and disorderly conduct.
The defendant moved to suppress his custodial statements as fruit of an unconstitutional, warrantless home arrest; the trial court denied the motion, finding probable cause and exigent circumstances.
The appellate court concluded the arrest violated article first, § 7 of the Connecticut Constitution (no exigent circumstances), required suppression of the statements, reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a PVC pipe used to strike the complainant was a "dangerous instrument" under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-3(7) supporting assault 2nd	State: photograph, bruise, defendant’s own description (called it "metal") and testimony that the pipe was swung and struck the victim supported that the pipe, as used, could cause serious physical injury	Liam M.: evidence showed only a bruise; state failed to prove the PVC pipe was capable of causing death or serious physical injury under the actual circumstances of use	Affirmed: jury reasonably could find the pipe was a dangerous instrument based on the instrument, manner of use, and resulting bruise; evidence sufficient for assault 2nd
Whether custodial statements should be suppressed because the warrantless in-home arrest lacked exigent circumstances under Conn. Const. art. I, § 7	State: arrest was supported by probable cause and court found exigent circumstances; statements therefore admissible (and alternatively argued attenuation)	Liam M.: hours had passed since the incident, complainant was at the station and could have been held to obtain a warrant; no danger to life, destruction of evidence, or flight risk—arrest and statements tainted	Reversed: no exigent circumstances shown; under Connecticut law evidence from an unlawful warrantless home arrest must be excluded unless taint is attenuated (no attenuation found), so statements suppressed and convictions reversed

State v. Jones, 173 Conn. 91 (1977) (jury decides whether an ordinary object is a dangerous instrument based on use and circumstances)
State v. Brooks, 88 Conn.App. 204 (2005) (ordinary objects may be dangerous instruments; analysis focuses on manner of use and potential to cause serious injury)
State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672 (1992) (Connecticut requires exclusion of evidence derived from unlawful warrantless home entry unless taint is attenuated)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless entry into a home is presumptively unreasonable)
New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (1990) (federal rule permitting admission of statements incident to illegal warrantless arrest when officers had probable cause; distinguished under Connecticut law)