325 A.2d 471 (Conn.Cir.A.D. 1974), State v. Anonymous (1974-3)

Citation:325 A.2d 471, 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 738
Opinion Judge:GOLDBERG, Judge.
Party Name:STATE of Connecticut v. ANONYMOUS (1974-3) [*].
Judge Panel:In this opinion LEXTON and MEMBRINO, JJ., concurred. GOLDBERG,
Court:Circuit Court of Connecticut

Page 471

325 A.2d 471 (Conn.Cir.A.D. 1974)

6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 738

STATE of Connecticut


ANONYMOUS (1974-3) [*].

Circuit Court of Connecticut, Appellate Division.


[6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 739] GOLDBERG, Judge.

The defendant has appealed from a judgment based on a finding of guilty by a jury of pool selling in violation of § 53-295 of the General Statutes.

The facts relevant to our determination of this appeal are as follows: Two state troopers, with search warrants authorizing the search of the defendant, his automobile and certain premises, stopped the defendant while he was operating his automobile and searched him and his automobile. They found and seized certain keys on the defendant and then proceeded with him to the premises, where they seized materials allegedly used in the commission of crimes of pool selling.

Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion that the court suppress the evidence seized on the ground that the search warrants were issued without probable cause. This motion was denied, and during the jury trial the court denied a similar motion, [6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 740] treating the court's ruling on the preliminary motion to suppress evidence as decisive on the question of probable cause.

The defendant has assigned error in the denial of the motions. These claims of error raise the issue which is decisive of this appeal, namely, whether the affidavits in support of the search warrants issued against the premises and the person of the defendant were legally sufficient. In determining that sufficiency, we are concerned only with the statements of fact contained in the affidavits. 1 Both affidavits, each consisting of sixteen paragraphs, are identical.

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; Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723.

The sufficiency of the affidavits must be measured in the light of the guiding principles of Aguilar v. Texas, supra, and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21...

To continue reading