State v. Rodriguez, 163 Conn.App. 262

On September 21, 2012, three people were arrested in Bridgeport with a large quantity of heroin; one arrestee (a named informant) provided information about a mid-level supplier allegedly based at 144 Cedar Street.
Police affidavit described the informant’s repeated visits (more than a dozen in the prior month, including within two days), firsthand observations of heroin packaging in the basement, storage of heroin and money in a basement safe, and firearms stored in the residence; the informant identified the supplier as “Milo” and gave a physical description.
Task force officers also observed one of the arrested suspects entering and leaving 144 Cedar Street within the two days before the warrant application; the warrant issued and police seized a substantial quantity of narcotics at the residence.
Rodriguez was arrested and charged with possession with intent to sell; he moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search, arguing the affidavit failed to establish probable cause.
After an evidentiary hearing the trial court denied the suppression motion; Rodriguez pleaded nolo contendere conditioned on appeal of the suppression ruling and was convicted and sentenced.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether affidavit provided probable cause for warrant based on informant’s tip	The affidavit gave sufficient indicia of reliability: named informant, statements against penal interest, detailed firsthand observations, and limited corroboration by police	The informant’s statements did not admit personal criminal conduct and lacked sufficient corroboration to show reliability	Court held probable cause existed; affidavit stronger than Flores and magistrate could reasonably credit informant
Whether independent corroboration was required or present	Some corroboration existed (arrest of informant and observation of suspect entering/leaving address) and, with details, sufficed under totality of circumstances	The corroboration was minimal and insufficient to support probable cause	Court found the corroboration, though limited, supported the totality analysis and reliability finding
Applicability of State v. Flores to this case	Flores permits crediting a named informant who gave statements against penal interest and whose tip included recent transactions	Rodriguez argued Flores is distinguishable and that this affidavit still fails Flores’ close-case scrutiny	Court applied Flores, found this affidavit more detailed and better corroborated, and upheld the warrant

State v. Buddhu, 264 Conn. 449 (Conn. 2003) (standard of review for probable cause on warrant affidavits)
State v. Barton, 219 Conn. 529 (Conn. 1991) (deference to issuing magistrate’s probable cause finding)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for informant tips)
State v. Flores, 319 Conn. 218 (Conn. 2015) (named informant who makes statements against penal interest can support probable cause)
State v. Ocasio, 112 Conn. App. 737 (Conn. App. 2009) (level of detail of informant tip is a factor in reliability)