203 Conn.App. 551
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background:
- On Jan. 31, 2017 a federal magistrate signed a warrant authorizing a search of 349 Noble Ave., Bridgeport (a duplex); agents executed a search the next morning at 351 Noble Ave.
- 349 and 351 are separate, unconnected units (separate driveways, entrances, mailboxes, meters; no interior access between units).
- During the search of 351 Noble Ave. officers found drugs, a gun, and personal effects (passports, IDs, men’s clothing) linking Gavin Lyons and other occupants to the third‑floor room at 351.
- Defendants (Lyons, David Gordon, Prince Gordon, Zipporah Greene‑Walters) moved to suppress evidence seized at 351 on the ground the warrant authorized only 349; trial court granted suppression and the informations were dismissed.
- The state appealed, arguing (1) Lyons lacked standing (he did not prove an expectation of privacy) and (2) the warrant or its supporting affidavit authorized the search of 351 despite the wrong address.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lyons had standing / reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched room | Lyons did not testify and thus failed to prove privacy interest; court relied on inadmissible hearsay and extra‑record facts | Personal effects (passports/IDs), men’s clothing in the room, and Lyons arrested in bathrobe/slippers show at least overnight‑guest status and expectation of privacy | Court: Lyons met burden; finding not clearly erroneous — he had an expectation of privacy (overnight guest/resident) |
| Whether trial court improperly relied on hearsay and judicial notice to find standing | Admission of SWAT statements to Detective Slaiby and court’s taking judicial notice of inventory were improper and prejudicial | Any complained‑of hearsay was harmless; inventory and items were testified to and in court file; no showing of harm | Court: State failed to show harmful error; judicial notice of court file proper; any error harmless |
| Whether search of 351 was authorized by warrant for 349 (particularity / incorporation of affidavit) | Warrant and affidavit together (and magistrate’s knowledge) show officers intended to search the right side (351); scrivener’s error; affidavit was incorporated/sealed but properly before magistrate | Warrant on its face identified 349 only; affidavit was sealed and not available to executing officers; warrant did not incorporate affidavit for the executing officers; no facts show officers knew to search 351 | Court: Search of 351 exceeded warrant scope and was warrantless; suppression affirmed (no exception to warrant requirement was claimed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (adopted two‑prong test for reasonable expectation of privacy).
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1990) (overnight guest has Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy).
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2004) (particularity requirement must be satisfied in the warrant itself except where warrant properly incorporates an accompanying affidavit).
- Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1987) (officers’ reasonable mistake as to premises may be excused depending on circumstances).
- United States v. Voustianiouk, 685 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2012) (search of a different apartment than that explicitly authorized by warrant is a warrantless search).
- United States v. Bershchansky, 788 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2015) (same principle: executing a warrant at an apartment other than the one identified renders the search unauthorized absent facts eliminating possibility of error).
- State v. Browne, 291 Conn. 720 (Conn. 2009) (affidavit may be relied upon to define scope when executing officers have actual knowledge; accompaniment not always required).