State v. Demarco
Decision Date | 22 April 2014 |
Docket Number | SC 18738 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MICHAEL ANGELO DEMARCO |
The "officially released" date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the "officially released" date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the "officially released" date.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic 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 Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, Harper, Vertefeuille and
Espinosa, Js.*
Ronald G. Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were David I. Cohen, state's attorney, and Michele Bredefeld, deputy assistant state's attorney, for the appellant (state).
Lindy R. Urso, for the appellee (defendant).
The state appeals, following our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial court convicting the defendant, Michael Angelo DeMarco, of two counts of cruelty to animals in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2007) § 53-247 (a).1 On appeal, the state claims that the Appellate Court improperly reversed the judgment of the trial court on the ground that the trial court improperly denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless entry into his residence.2 Specifically, the state claims that the Appellate Court improperly applied the "scrupulous review" standard and did not give the required deference to the factual findings of the trial court. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following relevant facts and procedural history. "On January 11, 2008, the defendant filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized from his premises as a result of the warrantless entry by the police on October 21, 2007. In response, the state claimed that the warrantless entry was done pursuant to an emergency and, accordingly, no warrant was required. Following a hearing, the court denied the defendant's motion to suppress on the ground that the warrantless entry by the police was permissible under the emergency . . . exception to the warrant requirement.
" " State v. DeMarco, 124 Conn. App. 438, 440-42, 5 A.3d 527 (2010).
The trial court further noted: " " Id., 442.
3 (Footnotes altered.) Id., 442-43.
Thereafter, the defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless entry into his residence on the ground that the warrantless entry was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement. Specifically, the defendant claimed that the trial court made erroneous factual findings and that "the evidence presented did not permit a finding that the police reasonably believed that a warrantless entry was necessary to help someone in immediate need of assistance." Id., 444-45. The Appellate Court, with one judge dissenting, agreed with the defendant. Id., 458; see also footnote 2 of this opinion.
Specifically, following "a thorough review of the record," the Appellate Court concluded that the trial court's factual finding "that Barcello did not have the defendant's cell phone number available to him while he was at the defendant's residence and before he decided to order the warrantless entry was clearly erroneous." Id., 447-48. The Appellate Court also concluded that the trial court's finding that Barcello did not have time to get the defendant's cell phone number due to "the immediacy of the situation" was also clearly erroneous. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 449-50. The Appellate Court further concluded that, "[b]ased solely on the facts found by the [trial] court, as corrected . . . the [trial] court improperly determined that the warrantless entry by the police was permissible under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement." (Emphasis added.) Id., 450.
The Appellate Court then stated as follows: "While we conclude that the subordinate facts found by the [trial] court do not support its finding that an objectively reasonable police officer would have believed that an emergency existed in this case, our own scrupulous review of the record provides additional support for our determination. . . .
...
To continue reading
Request your trial