139 Conn. App. 116
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Police responded to a 911 gun disturbance at 1318 Bedford Street, Stamford, and entered via the back door.
- Defendant was found on the third-floor hallway and consented to a search of his room, which was small and completed in 3–4 minutes.
- An attic access was discovered in an alcove; a stool allowed an officer to peek into the attic and observe a gun and a bag of marijuana.
- Baker entered the attic and retrieved the gun and marijuana; defendant was confronted and made a formal inculpatory statement.
- Defendant moved to suppress the attic evidence and his statement as fruit of the poisonous tree; suppression denied at a 2006 hearing.
- On appeal, defendant contends the attic was a protected privacy space; the trial court and appellate court analyze the defendant’s privacy expectations in the attic and surrounding multiunit dwelling context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the attic | State: no reasonable expectation in attic space | Pierre: yes, subjective and society recognizes reasonableness | No; defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the attic |
| If no privacy interest exists, whether suppression of evidence and statements is required | Evidence admissible since no privacy interest | Fruit of the poisonous tree suppression applies | Unnecessary to decide; suppression affirmed by not reaching evidence based on lack of privacy |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified searching the attic without a warrant | Exigent circumstances allowed safety/search | No exigency to forego warrant | Not reached as privacy finding resolved the issue |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mooney, 218 Conn. 85 (Conn. 1991) (two-part Katz framework; privacy expectation analysis)
- State v. Reddick, 207 Conn. 323 (Conn. 1988) (basement search in duplex; control/access key to privacy)
- State v. Torres, 36 Conn. App. 488 (Conn. App. 1995) (common hallways in multiunit building not private)
- State v. Sealy, 208 Conn. 689 (Conn. 1988) (tenant privacy in multiunit dwelling; access control)
- United States v. Mooney, 407 U.S. 297 (U.S. 1972) (home-entry principle; Fourth Amendment protections)