260 A.2d 128 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 1969
On Tuesday, January 7, 1969, members of the Connecticut state police in conjunction with members of the Branford police executed a *326 search warrant for the Silver Dollar Restaurant, located at 491 Main Street, Branford, Connecticut, as well as for Robert M. Tramontano. This warrant was issued on the basis of information received from a confidential informant which was corroborated by the personal observations of the activities of the defendant by two state police officers. These undercover officers submitted sworn affidavits of their observations which formed a substantial part of the application for the search warrant. The defendant has filed a motion to suppress evidence and has introduced various documents to establish the identity of the defendant as Mario R. Tramantano rather than Robert M. Tramontano as stated in the warrant.
The defendant contends that the warrant fails because the person to be searched is not described "as nearly as the circumstances permit," citing Gray
v. Davis,
The
The further argument is made that certain items were seized from the defendant which were outside the scope of the search warrant and that, therefore, "exhibits F and G-1 and 2 and any items seized from . . . [him], should be suppressed and excluded from evidence in any future hearings."
The facts of the instant case should be analyzed to ascertain whether the search warrant complied with the standard established in Steele v. UnitedStates, supra. This approach must be on a commonsense basis rather than upon a supertechnical basis requiring elaborate specificity. State v. Daniels,
The first page of the affidavit and application for the search and seizure warrant declares that the person sought to be searched is "Robert M. Tramontano, *328 W. M., D.O.B. 4-17-10." This same description is set forth in the search and seizure warrant itself. It should be noted that the full name of the defendant herein is Mario Robert Tramantano. The defendant is admittedly a white male and his date of birth is April 17, 1910. Trooper James R. Chayer concludes his affidavit regarding his observations of the activities of the defendant by noting that "in the Criminal Intelligence Office of the Connecticut State Police in Hartford, I was shown a photograph. I positively identified this photo as that of the man identified as Mr. Tramontano in the Silver Dollar Restaurant. The photo was then identified to me by trooper Kirby Hawkes of the Criminal Intelligence Division as that of a photo taken by the New Haven Police Department of Robert Mario Tramontano, of 2 Fairlawn Ave., Branford, D. O. B. 4-17-10." Likewise, Trooper Chayer describes his observations of the activities of "Robert Mario Tramontano." Trooper Mario Garofalo states, "I was assigned to observe Robert Mario Tramontano, 2 Fairlawn Avenue, Branford, Connecticut, for any possible gaming activity." It is noted that 2 Fairlawn Avenue is admittedly the residence of the defendant. Finally, the physical description of the defendant by Troopers Chayer and Garofalo is consistent with that in the testimony of Attorney Edward Reynolds, original counsel for the defendant in this matter. Thus, the affidavits and warrant not only identify the person to be searched as Robert Mario Tramontano but also set forth the physical description of the defendant and his correct residence and date of birth.
In determining the sufficiency of a description in a search warrant, recourse may be had to the affidavits attached thereto. United States v. Bozza,
In the present case the affidavits and warrant correctly set forth the defendant's middle and last name and his date of birth, physical description and address. Such details are consistent with the constitutional requirements of a particular description and more than satisfy the standard as established by Steele v. United States,
The Supreme Court of the United States has declared that highly technical attacks upon affidavits and warrants are not to be encouraged. In UnitedStates v. Ventresca,
An officer, with reasonable effort and application, could not only have identified the person commanded to be searched but, with this warrant, would not have been justified in searching any other person than the defendant. The warrant is valid and so is the search based upon it, and the property seized was properly taken pursuant thereto.
The motion to suppress is denied.