State v. Peterson, 135 A.3d 686

Police surveilled known marijuana trafficker Pedro Ayala; on March 10, 2010 they stopped Peterson after he left Ayala’s home and found $4,000; Ayala later said he had purchased marijuana from Peterson that day.
Additional sources: confidential informant Cedeno (Sept. 29, 2010) identified Kyle Peterson as a regular marijuana source; another informant, Soares, said the third-floor apartment at 33 Thorniley St. stored pounds of marijuana and large sums of cash.
In early October 2010 police conducted surveillance of Peterson’s residence and observed him briefly enter 33 Thorniley St. consistent with past short-delivery stops.
On Oct. 13, 2010 Peterson admitted (during an arranged call) to resupplying Cedeno with marijuana and told a CI not to call again; Oct. 20 officers saw Peterson leave with a white, weighted plastic bag and drive to 33 Thorniley St.
Officer Chrostowski blocked Peterson’s vehicle in the driveway, ordered him out, Officer Lopa patted him down, saw through the open door a ziplock bag appearing to contain marijuana on the rear floor, then searched the vehicle and seized marijuana; Peterson was arrested.
Trial court denied Peterson’s motion to suppress; he pleaded nolo contendere conditionally. The Appellate Court reversed, holding officers lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion for the detention; the Connecticut Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Peterson)	Held
Whether officers had reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain Peterson at 33 Thorniley St.	Totality of circumstances (prior $4,000 stop, multiple informants, earlier visit to 33 Thorniley, admission to resupplying, weighted bag) gave particularized suspicion he was making a drug delivery.	Officers lacked contemporaneous, particularized facts tying Peterson’s Oct. 20 conduct to drug activity; mere presence with a bag at a known location is insufficient.	The court held the totality supported reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain Peterson.
Whether ordering Peterson out of the vehicle and patting him down exceeded Terry scope	Officer safety justified ordering driver out given Peterson’s known trafficking in large quantities and risk he might be armed.	Terry frisk requires individualized suspicion that suspect is armed and dangerous; Mimms/Dukes are limited to traffic stops.	Court held ordering him out and the patdown were reasonable for officer safety in narcotics context.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes standard for investigatory stops and limited frisks)
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (upholding ordering driver out of vehicle for officer safety during traffic stop)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality-of-the-circumstances analysis and officers may draw reasonable inferences)
United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (suspicion may attach to noncriminal acts when viewed in context)
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) (mere presence at a location of criminal activity is not, by itself, reasonable suspicion)
State v. Lipscomb, 258 Conn. 68 (2001) (Connecticut standards for Terry stops; evaluate facts known at time of stop)
State v. Nash, 278 Conn. 620 (2006) (officers may rely on cumulative information and specialized training when assessing suspicion)
State v. Mann, 271 Conn. 300 (2004) (narcotics trafficking facts can give rise to suspicion that suspect is armed)