State v. Smith, 344 Conn. 229

Background

Defendant (Milla Death Row member) was implicated in a series of crimes in Jan. 2017: two delivery‑driver robberies (Jan. 9 and Jan. 14), theft of a Toyota Camry, arson of a Subaru Forester, and two shootings of rival gang member Gregory Flemming (Jan. 19). Firearm shell casings from several incidents matched.
Defendant was arrested Jan. 25, 2017 in the stolen Camry; police seized two cell phones (including a white Samsung) and a knit face mask; defendant was later charged in five consolidated cases.
Stamford police obtained two warrants: (1) Feb. 16, 2017 warrant to perform a full data extraction of defendant’s Samsung phone; (2) Sept. 19, 2018 warrant to T‑Mobile for subscriber records and CSLI for Jan. 7–25, 2017. Trial court denied suppression; jury convicted on all counts.
Connecticut Supreme Court held both warrants defective: the Samsung phone warrant lacked probable cause and failed the particularity requirement; the T‑Mobile records warrant lacked probable cause (particularity indeterminate from the record).
On harmless‑error review, the court concluded the erroneous admissions were harmless for convictions tied to the Jan. 9 robbery (Huang), the Jan. 19 shootings of Flemming (attempted murder counts), and interfering with an officer, but were not harmless for the Jan. 14 Chen robbery/shooting, the related larceny of the Camry, and the Forester arson. Those convictions were reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Smith's Argument	Held
1) Did the Feb. 16, 2017 warrant to extract data from defendant’s Samsung phone have probable cause?	Warrant supported by connection of phone to defendant (arrest in stolen Camry), matching gun across incidents, and other investigative facts.	Affidavit did not tie defendant or his phone to the aggravated assault/robbery — only presence in vehicle days later and an unspecified Facebook Live mention.	No. Affidavit lacked a nexus between defendant/phone and the charged aggravated assault; probable cause absent.
2) Did the Feb. 16, 2017 warrant satisfy particularity for a phone data extraction?	Full data extraction was justified and the device was specifically identified by make/serial number.	Warrant authorized an unlimited ‘‘data extraction’’ with no categories or time limits; impermissibly broad given Riley privacy concerns.	No. Warrant too broad: failed to describe areas/items to be searched or limit by time frame; particularity requirement not met.
3) Did the Sept. 19, 2018 T‑Mobile records/CSLI warrant have probable cause (and could the arrest warrant facts supply it)?	Warrant was supported by defendant’s arrest with Gantt, device seizure, and connection of vehicles to the crimes; issuing judge could rely on the arrest warrant basis.	Affidavit did not include factual allegations tying defendant or his phone to the attempted murder; arrest‑warrant probable cause cannot substitute for the particularized showing required for a search warrant.	No. Affidavit did not establish a substantial chance that T‑Mobile records would contain evidence of attempted murder; a search warrant requires a separate nexus and the arrest warrant facts were not incorporated.
4) If warrants were defective, was admission harmless error as to each conviction?	The electronic evidence was cumulative to other proofs and did not affect jury’s verdicts on all counts.	CSLI and phone data were critical to placing defendant at the Chen robbery and Forester arson; their admission likely affected those convictions.	Mixed. Error was harmless as to Huang robbery, Flemming shootings (attempted murder), and interfering with an officer. Error was harmful (requiring new trial) as to Chen robbery/shooting, related Camry larceny, and Forester arson.

Key Cases Cited

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell phones hold vast amounts of private data; searches require particularized and limited warrants)
Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) (search warrants must show nexus between items to be seized and criminal activity)
Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) (warrant must establish probable cause as to the place and the items to be seized)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (Fourth Amendment exclusionary protections apply to the states)
State v. Sawyer, 335 Conn. 29 (2020) (probable cause assessment: practical, commonsense inquiry under totality of circumstances)
State v. Buddhu, 264 Conn. 449 (2003) (review of warrant particularity and standards of appellate review)
State v. Colon, 230 Conn. 24 (1994) (probable cause must appear within the four corners of the affidavit)
State v. DeChamplain, 179 Conn. 522 (1980) (distinction between probable cause for arrest and for a search warrant)
State v. Armadore, 338 Conn. 407 (2021) (factors for harmless‑error review of improperly admitted evidence)
State v. Esarey, 308 Conn. 819 (2013) (harmlessness test for constitutional search and seizure errors)