182 Conn. App. 580
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Police responded to an assault report at a YMCA/apartment complex; dispatcher said the suspect was in his apartment with a shotgun. Victim identified Ortiz as assailant and said Ortiz owned a shotgun.
- An unidentified witness told officers the suspect was sitting with a shotgun in a gray van in the residential, gated parking lot. Officers initially looked into the van but saw no one or gun; plate and VIN checks were anomalous.
- Officers located and arrested Ortiz at his apartment building; during a search incident to arrest they recovered a key fob and a 12-gauge shotgun shell from his person. Ortiz was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car.
- Officers returned to the van; using the key fob and peering through tinted windows they saw the barrel of a shotgun and bullets spilling from a box. They unlocked the van, seized a sawed-off shotgun, and charged Ortiz with gun offenses.
- Ortiz moved to suppress the gun as the product of an unlawful, warrantless search; the trial court denied the motion, Ortiz pleaded nolo contendere to the gun counts, reserved the suppression issue, and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless seizure of the shotgun was lawful under the plain view doctrine | Officers lawfully viewed and had probable cause to seize contraband in plain view while investigating an armed-assault report | Once Ortiz was arrested and removed, a second look into a parked van in private lot was an unlawful intrusion requiring a warrant | Held: seizure valid under plain view — officers were lawfully present as part of a continuing investigation and probable cause existed to associate the observed gun with criminal activity |
Key Cases Cited
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (articulated plain view requirements: lawful initial intrusion and probable cause to believe item is contraband)
- Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983) (plain-view seizure in public places permissible when probable cause links item to criminality)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (inadvertence not required for plain-view seizure of contraband)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (once privacy expectation is frustrated, government may use nonprivate information)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431 (1999) (Connecticut discussion of plain-view exception requirements)
- State v. Brown, 279 Conn. 493 (2006) (privacy interest lost when officer lawfully views contraband; plain view as extension of prior justification)
- State v. Magnano, 204 Conn. 259 (1978) (plain view seizure as part of continuing investigation)
- State v. Langley, 128 Conn. App. 213 (2011) (continuing investigation can obviate need for a warrant when contraband is in plain view)
- State v. Wilson, 111 Conn. App. 614 (2008) (officer training and experience may inform probable cause determination)
- State v. Jones, 320 Conn. 93 (2016) (probable cause as an objective, totality-based determination)