State v. Anonymous

• Decision Date: 01 January 1973
• Citation: 30 Conn.Supp. 584,312 A.2d 1
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court

Page 1

312 A.2d 1

30 Conn.Supp. 584

STATE of Connecticut v. ANONYMOUS (1973-8) ^* .

Court of Common Pleas of Connecticut, Appellate Division.

SPONZO, Judge.

The application for a warrant for the defendant's arrest charged that the defendant committed the crime of aggravated assault in violation of § 53-16 of the General Statutes. A city police department detective filed the sole affidavit supporting the application. A Circuit Court judge found that probable cause existed for the arrest of the defendant and ordered a warrant for his arrest. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that his arrest was based on facts insufficient to establish probable cause and that the arrest was made without a showing of probable cause as required by the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution of the United States and article first, §§ 7, 8 and 9, of the Connecticut constitution. This motion was denied. Subsequently, the defendant again filed a motion to dismiss, alleging the same reasons and, in addition, that the arrest warrant was stale at the time of execution. This motion was also denied.

The affidavit of the police officer disclosed that the complainant made a sworn statement to the police naming the defendant as the party who assaulted him. The affidavit of the police officer contains no other facts, nor does it contain any statement relative to the reliability of the informant or the source from whom the informant discovered the identity of the person who assaulted him.

The fourth amendment to the United States constitution provides that 'no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation.' 'In testing the validity of the warrant, the reviewing court can only consider information brought to the magistrate's attention. . . . Since the only information before the issuing authority was the affidavit of the police officer, the decisive question is whether the facts recited in it were sufficient to support a finding of probable cause.' State v. Jackson, 162 Conn. 440, 443, 294 A.2d 517, 521.

The principles by which we test the adequacy of an affidavit have been designed to ensure that a disinterested judicial officer shall make his own common-sense judgment that a suspect probably has, or probably has not, been involved in the commission of a crime. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 415, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637.

In the instant case, the police officer, in support of the application for an arrest warrant, submitted an affidavit which relied solely on the sworn statement of the complainant. A judicial officer may treat this information from the complainant on the same plane as information from the police officer, so long as there is a substantial basis for crediting it. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, and Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 269, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697, have restated this requirement in two parts: The issuing officer must be informed of (1) some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the underlying viding the information to the affiant, and (2) some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded (a)...