State v. Correa

• Decision Date: 15 September 2021
• Docket Number: SC 20246
• Citation: 340 Conn. 619,264 A.3d 894
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Ricardo CORREA
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

340 Conn. 619

264 A.3d 894

STATE of Connecticut

v.Ricardo CORREA

SC 20246

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued February 27, 2020

Officially released September 15, 2021^*

Laila M. G. Haswell, senior assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Michele C. Lukban, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Richard J. Colangelo, Jr., chief state's attorney, and Susan M. Campbell, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.^**

PALMER, J.

The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution¹ prohibits the police from conducting a warrantless canine sniff of the exterior door to a motel room for the purpose of detecting the presence of illegal drugs inside the room. We conclude that a warrantless canine sniff of the exterior door to a motel room by the police violates article first, § 7, because its use for that purpose constitutes a search subject to the warrant requirement of that state constitutional provision.

The defendant, Ricardo Correa, was charged with several drug related offenses and, thereafter, filed a motion to suppress the evidence, including heroin and marijuana, that had been seized from his motel room pursuant to a search warrant. In support of the motion, he claimed that the search violated his rights under article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution and the fourth amendment to the United States constitution because the search warrant affidavit contained information obtained from an allegedly unlawful, warrantless visual sweep of his motel room. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the visual sweep was necessary to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence and, therefore, was justified by the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. The trial court further concluded that, even if the visual sweep was not justified under that exception, the evidence seized during the execution of the search warrant was admissible under the independent source doctrine. The defendant subsequently entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere; see General Statutes § 54-94a ;² to the charges of conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes §§ 21a-277 (b) and 53a-48, conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes §§ 21a-278 (a) and 53a-48, and conspiracy to operate a drug factory in violation of General Statutes §§ 21a-277 (c) and 53a-48, reserving his right to appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of nine years’ imprisonment.

The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming, contrary to the determination of the trial court, that he was entitled to suppression of the evidence found in the motel room because the search warrant pursuant to which that evidence was seized was derived from the unlawful visual sweep of the room. See State v. Correa , 185 Conn. App. 308, 311, 197 A.3d 393 (2018). In addition, he claimed for the first time that the evidence must be suppressed because the search warrant affidavit also included information obtained from a canine sniff conducted by the police outside the door of his motel room, which, the defendant maintained, violated his rights under article first, § 7, because it was performed without a warrant predicated on probable cause. Id., at 321, 197 A.3d 393. The Appellate Court rejected both of these claims, concluding, with respect to the visual sweep, that it was constitutionally permissible under the exigent circumstances exception to avert the destruction of evidence; see id., at 340, 197 A.3d 393 ; and, with respect to the canine sniff, that a warrant was unnecessary because the sniff was not a search for purposes of the state constitution. See id., at 330–31, 197 A.3d 393. The Appellate Court therefore affirmed the judgment of the trial court; id., at 340, 197 A.3d 393 ; and we granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issues: (1) "Did the Appellate Court [correctly] determine that a police canine sniff that took place outside of the defendant's motel room was not a search that violated the defendant's rights under article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution?" And (2) "[d]id the Appellate Court [correctly] conclude that the visual sweep of the defendant's motel room was justified by exigent circumstances?" State v. Correa , 330 Conn. 959, 959–60, 199 A.3d 19 (2019). We agree with the defendant that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that the canine sniff was lawful under article first, § 7. We also agree with the defendant that the visual sweep was not justified by the exigencies of the situation. For the reasons set forth more fully hereinafter, however, we further conclude that the case must be remanded to the trial court so that the state may have the opportunity to adduce testimony establishing, first, that the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant was admissible, notwithstanding the impropriety of the canine sniff, under the independent source or inevitable discovery doctrine, and, second, that the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant was admissible, notwithstanding the impropriety of the visual sweep, under the independent source doctrine.

IFACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following facts, as found by the trial court on the basis of the evidence adduced at the hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress, and procedural history. "During the early morning hours of February 5, 2013, Sergeant Christopher Broems of the Stamford Police Department was parked on Home Court, a street immediately behind the America's Best Value Inn motel (motel) on East Main Street in [the city of] Stamford. Sergeant Broems, a nineteen year veteran of the Stamford Police Department who also spent three years in the New York City Police Department, had made many prior arrests at the motel for narcotics, prostitution, and other criminal activity. From the street, Sergeant Broems was surveilling the motel for evidence of possible illegal activity. He was parked approximately fifty yards away from the motel and had a clear, well illuminated view of the motel, which included two floors of numbered motel room doors that opened onto the back parking lot.

"At approximately 1:20 a.m., Sergeant Broems observed a silver colored 2004 GMC Yukon pull into the motel parking lot. Only the passenger in the Yukon, who was later determined to be Eudy Taveras, exited the Yukon, while the operator remained in the vehicle with the headlights on. Taveras approached and entered room 118 of the motel, which was on the first floor, where he remained for less than one minute. Taveras returned to the vehicle, which then left the motel. Given the location, time of night, and duration of the visit, Sergeant Broems believed that he may have witnessed a narcotics transaction out of room 118. Sergeant Broems radioed to a nearby colleague, Officer Vincent Sheperis, [indicating] that he intended to stop the Yukon, and then drove in the direction of the Yukon.

"When the operator of the Yukon, who was later determined to be Charles Brickman, observed Sergeant Broems approaching the Yukon in his marked Stamford Police SUV, he turned off [his] headlights. A short distance from the motel, Sergeant Broems stopped the vehicle. Officer Sheperis joined Sergeant Broems, acting as backup. When Sergeant Broems and Officer Sheperis approached the vehicle, they both smelled a strong odor of marijuana emanating from inside the Yukon. Sergeant Broems and Officer Sheperis removed Taveras from the vehicle, and Taveras admitted to possessing ‘weed.’ A search of Taveras revealed two glass jars with yellow tops containing marijuana, along with three other similar, but empty, yellow topped glass jars, as well as a knotted corner of a plastic sandwich bag containing heroin. On the basis of this evidence, Sergeant Broems requested a sweep of the Yukon by a canine officer trained in the detection of narcotics.

"A canine officer, Cooper, and his Stamford Police Department handler, Sergeant Seth O'Brien, arrived on the scene shortly after Sergeant Broems’ request. Cooper alerted to the center console of the vehicle, but the officers found no additional drugs. Brickman was found to have no drugs on his person." State v. Correa , supra, 185 Conn. App. at 311–13, 197 A.3d 393. In response to questioning by the police, Brickman stated that Taveras was "staying in the hotel" but that he "[did not] know what [Taveras] was getting" when he entered and then quickly exited the first floor room there. Brickman was issued a ticket for operating a motor vehicle without headlights but was allowed to leave in the Yukon. The officers detained Taveras, who, at that time, denied being in or having any connection to the motel room. Taveras also denied having any more marijuana.

"Taveras informed Sergeant O'Brien that he lived with his grandmother nearby on Charles Street in Stamford. At that point, Sergeant Broems, Officer Sheperis, and Sergeant O'Brien went to the grandmother's home on Charles Street, where they spoke with Taveras’ brother. [According to his brother, Taveras was in the process of moving out of the house.] Taveras’ grandmother signed a consent form allowing the officers to search Taveras’ bedroom. In Taveras’ bedroom, the officers found numerous plastic bags with the corners cut off, consistent with narcotics packaging, along with other bags containing an [off-white] powder residue.

"The officers then returned to the motel. They spoke with the manager of the motel, who advised them that, several days earlier, the defendant rented room 118 for the week, until February 8, 2013, paying $430 in cash.³ The manager provided the...