132 Conn. App. 17
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant Read was arrested and charged with murder following a late night shooting on October 21, 2005.
- Read moved to suppress certain statements made to Detective Gary Dorman during the April 14, 2006 execution of a search warrant at Read's home.
- A suppression hearing found Read was not in custody for Miranda purposes at the time of those statements, and the court denied the suppression motion.
- Read was tried before a jury, convicted of murder under General Statutes § 53a-54a, and sentenced to fifty years’ incarceration.
- On appeal, Read contends the suppression ruling was improper because he was in custody and thus entitled to Miranda warnings.
- The appellate court upheld the trial court, agreeing Read was not in police custody at the time of the statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Read was in custody for Miranda purposes during the statements to Dorman | State argues he was not in custody and autonomy existed during the search. | Read argues he was in custody and Miranda warnings were required. | Not in custody; Miranda warnings not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Edwards, 299 Conn. 419, 11 A.3d 116 (2011) (custody for Miranda purposes; objective test)
- State v. Bridges, 125 Conn.App. 72, 6 A.3d 223 (2010) (two-step custody analysis; de novo review)
- State v. Greenfield, 228 Conn. 62, 634 A.2d 879 (1993) (consensual encounter vs seizure; free to leave factor)
- State v. Britton, 283 Conn. 598, 929 A.2d 312 (2007) (not handcuffed or subjected to force)
- State v. Doyle, 104 Conn.App. 4, 931 A.2d 393 (2007) (not physically restrained)
- State v. Hasfal, 106 Conn.App. 199, 941 A.2d 387 (2008) (free to leave test context note)
- United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073, 1089 (9th Cir. 2008) (distinguishes knowledge of liberty during execution of warrant)