State v. Donahue, (SC 16143)
Decision Date | 21 December 1999 |
Docket Number | (SC 16143) |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JEFFREY L. DONAHUE |
McDonald, C. J., and Berdon, Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Peters and Callahan, JS. Kevin C. Connors, for the appellant (defendant).
Robert M. Spector, deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Mark S. Solak, state's attorney, and Roger Caridad, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the Appellate Court, in affirming the judgment of the trial court, properly concluded that the police had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify stopping the defendant's vehicle and detaining him. We conclude that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the trial court's determination concerning the existence of the requisite reasonable and articulable suspicion. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The defendant, Jeffrey L. Donahue, pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a.1 The trial court had denied in part and granted in part the defendant's motion to suppress evidence of his statements to the police and the results of the field sobriety tests the police had conducted prior to his arrest.2 In its denial of the defendant's motion, the trial court, Schuman, J., held that the defendant had been stopped by the arresting officer pursuant to a reasonable suspicion justifying the stop and that, therefore, the resulting statements and field tests were admissible. Following the defendant's conditional plea of nolo contendere pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a,3 the trial court rendered a judgment of conviction and sentenced the defendant to a term of six months imprisonment, execution suspended, and six months conditional discharge. The trial court also suspended the defendant's license, imposed a fine and ordered community service and counseling. The execution of the sentence was stayed to allow the defendant the opportunity to appeal.
On appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the trial court improperly had denied his motion to suppress. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. State v. Donahue, 53 Conn. App. 497, 502, 729 A.2d 255 (1999). This certified appeal followed.4
On appeal, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. He claims that the police did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify his detention. The state claims that the police did have a reasonable and articulable suspicion, and that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress.
The Appellate Court determined that the following facts were undisputed. "On December 10, 1997, Sergeant Todd Lynch of the Connecticut state police was on routine patrol on Club Road in Windham. As a shift supervisor, Lynch normally would not be on street patrol. This area, however, had experienced a dramatic increase in criminal activity in the previous four to six weeks, which he was attempting to counteract with his help on patrol. Specifically, Lynch was patrolling a cemetery next to a public housing project located on Club Road where drug dealing and prostitution often took place. Individuals would often park their vehicles at the commercial establishments along Club Road and then walk through the cemetery into the housing project to engage in these illegal activities.
At trial, the defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained after his initial detention on the ground that such detention had been unlawful. The defendant claimed that Lynch lacked a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop his vehicle and that the ensuing detention, therefore, violated his rights pursuant to the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution,5 and article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution. 6 The trial court ruled that Accordingly, the trial court denied the defendant's motion in part.7
The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Id., 501.
Before this court, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the police had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify stopping his vehicle. The state argues in response that Lynch's investigatory stop of the defendant was justified based upon the fact that the defendant was driving his lawfully registered vehicle in a commercial area that recently had seen an increase in criminal activities, especially drug dealing, prostitution, larceny and vandalism, and that "individuals would often park their vehicles at establishments along Club Road and walk across the cemetery into the adjacent public housing project to engage in drug dealing and prostitution." We agree with the defendant that the facts of this case do not reveal a reasonable and articulable basis for a police stop.
As a threshold matter, we set forth the standard by which we review the Appellate Court's ruling. (Citation omitted; internal quotations marks omitted.) State v. Cofield, 220 Conn. 38, 44, 595 A.2d 1349 (1991). We conclude that the Appellate Court's conclusion that Lynch had a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity is legally and logically inconsistent with the facts before us.
Although the issue of whether Lynch's detention of the defendant constituted a "seizure" is not a certified issue before this court, the state asserts, as an alternative ground for affirming the decision of the Appellate Court, that Lynch's stop of the defendant was not a seizure. Indeed, the state cites State v. Hill, 237 Conn. 81, 87, 675 A.2d 866 (1996), for this court's definition of "seizure." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. The trial court ruled that Lynch's detention of the defendant did constitute a seizure and the Appellate Court did not disturb that finding.8
The state's argument is difficult to sustain in light of its counsel's concession, at oral argument before this court, that under the circumstances in the present case, he—or any other reasonable person—would not have felt free to leave after Lynch pulled up behind the defendant's car and activated the vehicle's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Kimble, No. 26992.
...under article first, §§ 7 and 9 of our state constitution." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Donahue, 251 Conn. 636, 643-44, 742 A.2d 775 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 924, 121 S.Ct. 299, 148 L.Ed.2d 240 "Police have the right to stop for investigation short ......
-
State v. Houghtaling, AC 35720
...locations with which she believed he had no connection), appeal dismissed, 281 Conn. 612, 917 A.2d 25 (2007). In State v. Donahue, 251 Conn. 636, 646-47, 742 A.2d 775 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 924, 121 S. Ct. 299, 148 L. Ed. 2d 240 (2000), the court deemed unpersuasive the state's argu......
-
Ramos v. Vernon
...detentions under article first, §§ 7 and 9 of our state constitution." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Donahue, 251 Conn. 636, 643-44, 742 A.2d 775 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 924, 121 S. Ct. 299, 148 L. Ed. 2d 240 Richard Ramos' argument that the ordinance permits the polic......
-
State v. Edmonds
...less suspicious than conduct that has been held to be insufficient, as a matter of law, to justify a seizure. In State v. Donahue, 251 Conn. 636, 639, 742 A.2d 775 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 924, 121 S. Ct. 299, 148 L. Ed. 2d 240 (2000), for example, the police observed an individual id......
-
Significant Developments in Criminal Law: 1999-2000
...(Berdon, J., dissenting). 82 249 Conn. 645, 689, 735 A.2d 267 (1999) (Berdon, J., dissenting). 83 249 Conn. 242, 733 A.2d 181 (1999). 84 251 Conn. 636, 742 A.2d 775 (1999), cert. denied, __ U.S. ___, 121 S. Ct. 299 (2000). 85 State v. Donahue, 53 Conn. App. 497, 729 A.2d 255, rev'd, 251 Con......
-
1999 Connecticut Appellate Review
...248 Conn. 207, 726 A.2d 531 (1999). 17251 Conn. 1, 738 A.2d 623 (1999). 58. Id. at 54. 59. See supra, note 9. 60. 247 Conn. at 533. 61. 251 Conn. 636, 742 A.2d 775 62. Id. at 651-52 (footnote omitted). 63. See supra, note 3. 64. See supra, note 30. 65. See supra note 39. 66. See supra, note......