State v. Browne
Decision Date | 26 May 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 18065.,18065. |
Citation | 291 Conn. 720,970 A.2d 81 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Herbert J. BROWNE III. |
John R. Donovan, Cromwell, for the appellee (defendant).
Conrad Ost Seifert, Old Lyme, filed a brief for the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association as amicus curiae.
ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, KATZ, ZARELLA and SCHALLER, Js.
The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the trial court improperly had denied the motion of the defendant, Herbert J. Browne III, to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. The state appeals, following our grant of certification,1 from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded with direction to grant the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his residence. State v. Browne, 104 Conn.App. 314, 321, 933 A.2d 735 (2007). The state makes several arguments on appeal. First, the state argues that the search warrant was valid, notwithstanding any scrivener's errors present on the face of the document. Alternatively, the state argues that any errors in the particularity portion of the warrant can be remedied by employment of the severance doctrine, through which, the state asserts, an otherwise facially deficient warrant may be saved by excising the offending language. The state contends that, once the problems with the warrant are cured by severance, the evidence was legally seized under the plain view doctrine.
The defendant urges us to affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court, asserting that the challenged warrant "authorizes not only a general search but an illegal, general and widespread search unsupported by either probable cause or constitutional authority." The defendant further argues that the warrant cannot be saved by the affidavit's explicit reference to marijuana because the affidavit did not accompany the warrant nor was it incorporated by reference into the warrant. We agree with the state and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The undisputed facts of this case were fully set forth in the Appellate Court's opinion.2 "On December 23, 2003, a combined application and affidavit for the search and seizure warrant was presented to the Honorable Thomas V. O'Keefe, Jr., a judge of the Superior Court. It is undisputed that the warrant authorized a search for and seizure of illicit drugs. It is also undisputed that the warrant mistakenly referenced the illicit drug cocaine instead of the illicit drug marijuana.
State v. Browne, supra, 104 Conn.App. at 323-30, 933 A.2d 735 (Gruendel, J., dissenting). The defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere, conditioned on his right to challenge on appeal the validity of the search warrant. See General Statutes § 54-94a. The court rendered judgment of conviction, sentencing the defendant to forty-two months imprisonment. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
The Appellate Court, relying primarily on Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 124 S.Ct. 1284, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004), concluded that the warrant was facially invalid because it failed to satisfy the particularity clause of the fourth amendment to the United States constitution.3 State v. Browne, supra, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Lyons
... ... In State v. Browne , 291 Conn. 720, 734, 970 A.2d 81 (2009), our Supreme Court distinguished Groh and clarified that, in some circumstances, the affidavit need not accompany the warrant when executed to satisfy the fourth amendment. In Browne , the defendant moved to suppress marijuana seized during a search ... ...
-
State v. Police
... ... Colon , 230 Conn. 24, 34, 644 A.2d 877 (1994) ("in determining 343 Conn. 290 the adequacy of an affidavit in support of a ... warrant, the information to establish probable cause must be found within the affidavit's four corners"). In State v. Browne , 291 Conn. 720, 970 A.2d 81 (2009), this court explained that "[t]he protections afforded by the particularity [requirement of the fourth amendment] focus primarily on, and restrict the process of, issuing a warrant ... This focus makes sense in light of the chief purpose of the [requirement], ... ...
-
Do v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles
... ... At the license suspension hearing, pursuant to 14227b19 (a) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, the A44 form, which the arresting officer is required to complete, shall be admissible into evidence at the hearing if it conforms to the ... See, e.g., State v. Browne, 291 Conn. 720, 73337, 970 A.2d 81 (2009) ; D'Amico v. Dept. of Correction, 73 Conn.App. 718, 72730, 812 A.2d 17 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn ... ...
-
Town of Bozrah v. Chmurynski
... ... Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal ... Browne, 291 Conn. 720, 750, 970 A.2d 81 (2009). Anything less than a finding that ''the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the ... ...