State v. Brindley

• Decision Date: 02 October 1963
• Docket Number: 15393,Nos. 15392,s. 15392
• Citation: 200 A.2d 247,25 Conn.Supp. 216
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Robert T. BRINDLEY. STATE of Connecticut v. William T. MAVER.

Page 247

200 A.2d 247

25 Conn.Supp. 216

STATE of Connecticut v. Robert T. BRINDLEY.

STATE of Connecticut v. William T. MAVER.

Nos. 15392, 15393.

Superior Court of Connecticut, Fairfield County at Bridgeport.

Oct. 2, 1963.

Otto J. Saur, State's Atty., for the state in each case.

Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin & Kuriansky, Stamford, for the defendant in the first case.

Joseph A. Izzillo, Greenwich, for the defendant in the second case.

SHAPIRO, Judge.

Both defendants have filed similar motions to suppress the use in court of certain articles proposed to be used as evidence against them. Both contend that these articles were unreasonably seized by the police by means of an unreasonable search in violation of their rights under the fourth amendment to the United States constitution and § 8 of the first article of the Connecticut constitution. These deal, in part, with unreasonable searches and seizures.

Under the aforementioned constitutional provisions, security in their persons, houses, papers and effects in assured the people. Not only the search of a dwelling but also of a place of business or automobile is limited by them. Taylor v. United States, 286 U.S. 1, 52 S.Ct. 466, 76 L.Ed. 951; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543. The fourth amendment forbids every search that is unreasonable, and is construed liberally to safeguard the right of privacy. Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669.

The facts in the case may be summarized as follows: Greenwich police officers, John Styles and Colin Dunnigan, were in a police car patrolling the west end of the town along the Post Road in the early morning hours of April 30, 1963. At about 1:30 a. m., they observed a 1955 Buick, bearing New York markers and parked across the sidewalk on the easterly side of Dayton Avenue. In this general area was a shopping center, houses, the Greenwich High School and a medical center related to pediatrics. The Buick was then backed out into the street and proceeded westerly on the Post Road toward the New York state line. It was raining at the time. The police car followed this vehicle for about half a mile and owing to truck traffic, was unable to draw near until this distance had been traversed. At this point, Styles observed that the vehicle's windshield wiper was not working and thereupon signaled the Buick over to the side of the road. The defendant Brindley was driving and the defendant Maver was seated next to him. Brindley got out and Maver remained seated. The officers then observed two bottles of whiskey on the rear seat. Dunnigan was able to discern Maver's features and asked him where he and Brindley had been. He answered that they had been in a fight at Shippan Point in Stamford. Maver was then asked if he had ever been arrested before, and he replied that he 'had done time' in Westchester for a burglary. Maver was asked to get out of her car, when Dunnigan saw an automobile lug wrench and a large screwdriver lying on the car floor near the gront seat. Up to this point neither officer had entered the Buick. Then, Dunnigan, because he believed the wrench and screwdriver to be burglars' tools and because of Maver's Westchester arrest, searched under the car seat and found a bag with about $50 in coins, as well as other articles.

It is also to be noted that the testimony was clear that the Buick was stopped because the windshield wiper was not working. Section 14-80 of the General Statutes requires that a 'windshield cleaner [shall be] in good working order.' Failure to comply is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine. Dunnigan had asked Maver to get out of the car in order that he could check the wipers. As he got out, the tools were observed on the floor and also the bottles of whiskey.

Both officers were suspicious when the Buick was first seen because of where it was parked, the New York markers, and the time of night. When Styles 'pulled' the car over, he did so to make an arrest for a defective windshield wiper. Thereafter, followed the events as above related. The defendants contend that the articles in question could not be seized without a search warrant and, because of the circumstances involved, that the seizure violated their constitutional rights. They seek to suppress the use of the articles found in the Buick as evidence to be used against them.

It is true that an arrest may not be used as a pretext to a search for evidence. State v. Michaels, 60 Wash.2d 638, 374 P.2d 989. It has been held that where an officer searched the car of an accused, without benefit of a warrant and not upon any probable cause but upon mere suspicion, the search and the seizure of evidence found thereby were inadmissible. McCormick v. State, 277 P.2d 219 (Okl.Cr.). Police may not arrest on mere suspicion but only upon probable cause,...