State v. Sayles, 202 Conn.App. 736

Background

On April 6, 2015 a convenience store robbery in New Haven resulted in the store employee’s death; surveillance and witness Jonathan Vanderberg identified the defendant (Sayles) and Jamal Sumler as perpetrators.
Vanderberg told police he drove the defendant and Sumler to the store and that one of them communicated with him by cell phone around the time of the crime; he gave police phone numbers for the men.
On April 15, 2015 Sayles went to the police station with his mother; during a recorded interview he invoked his right to counsel and the detectives ended substantive questioning.
Detective Perrone, concerned evidence on the phone could be erased, asked Sayles’s mother for the defendant’s cell phone and received it; Perrone then obtained a warrant the next day to search the phone’s contents.
Sayles moved to suppress the phone and its data, arguing (1) Miranda and Connecticut constitutional violations (post-invocation questioning), (2) unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment (no probable cause/exigent circumstances), and (3) a Franks claim that the warrant affidavit omitted or misstated material facts; the trial court denied suppression and the defendant was convicted; appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Sayles)	Held
Whether the phone and its contents must be suppressed as the fruit of post-invocation interrogation (Miranda and Conn. Const. art. I, §8)	Even if Miranda was violated, suppression of physical, non‑testimonial evidence (the phone and its contents) is not required under Patane and Connecticut precedent.	Detectives continued to question after Sayles invoked counsel to learn where the phone was; any evidence obtained thereafter is tainted and should be suppressed; asks this court to adopt a state‑constitutional prophylactic rule.	Court: Even assuming a Miranda violation, physical evidence is not suppressed as fruit of unwarned statements; declined to adopt new Connecticut prophylactic rule (no record of deception and no adequate Geisler analysis).
Whether the warrantless seizure of the phone at the station violated the Fourth Amendment (probable cause / exigent circumstances)	Perrone had probable cause (witness ID, phone numbers, officer experience that phones contain incriminating data) and reasonably believed immediate seizure was necessary to prevent destruction of evidence.	No nexus between the phone and the crime; Vanderberg was unreliable; no exigency justified warrantless seizure.	Court: Probable cause existed under the totality of the circumstances and the exigent‑circumstances exception applied; Vanderberg’s statements and the officer’s training supported the seizure.
Whether the warrant affidavit contained knowingly false or recklessly made omissions (Franks)	Affidavit accurately described interaction (mother handing phone); no intentional/reckless falsehood and seizure/affidavit were valid.	Affidavit omitted that questioning occurred after Sayles requested counsel; omission was material and entitled Sayles to a Franks hearing.	Court: Trial court made no explicit factual finding on whether the omission was made knowingly/recklessly and the defendant failed to show materiality; record inadequate for Franks relief, so claim not reviewed.

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (warnings required for custodial interrogation)
United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (U.S. 2004) (Miranda violation does not automatically require suppression of non‑testimonial physical evidence)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (preliminary showing required to obtain hearing on alleged false statements in warrant affidavit)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (U.S. 2014) (generally a warrant is required to search cell‑phone data)
State v. Mangual, 311 Conn. 182 (Conn. 2014) (Connecticut follows Patane re: physical fruits of unwarned statements)
State v. Purcell, 331 Conn. 318 (Conn. 2019) (Connecticut’s article first, §8 offers broader protection when a suspect makes an equivocal request for counsel)
State v. Flores, 319 Conn. 218 (Conn. 2015) (known informant’s statements and those against penal interest carry indicia of credibility for probable cause)
State v. Spencer, 268 Conn. 575 (Conn. 2004) (framework for exigent‑circumstances exception to warrant requirement)