State v. Lyons
Decision Date | 30 March 2021 |
Docket Number | AC 42807 |
Citation | 203 Conn.App. 551,248 A.3d 727 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Gavin LYONS State of Connecticut v. David Gordon State of Connecticut v. Prince Gordon State of Connecticut v. Zipporah Greene-Walters |
Ronald G. Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom were C. Robert Satti, Jr., supervisory assistant state's attorney, and, on the brief, John C. Smriga, state's attorney, for the appellant (state).
Adele V. Patterson, senior assistant public defender, for the appellee (defendant Gavin Lyons).
Naomi T. Fetterman, for the appellees (defendant David Gordon et al.).
The state of Connecticut appeals from the judgments of the trial court dismissing informations brought against the defendants, Gavin Lyons, David Gordon, Prince Gordon and Zipporah Greene-Walters, following its granting of motions to suppress filed by the defendants.1 On appeal, the state claims that the court improperly (1) determined that Lyons met his burden of proving an expectation of privacy in the areas searched by law enforcement agents and, thus, allowed Lyons to proceed with his motion to suppress,2 and (2) granted the defendants’ motions to suppress items seized during a search of a residence located at 351 Noble Avenue in Bridgeport. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
The following factual and procedural history is relevant to our resolution of the claims on appeal. On January 31, 2017, a United States magistrate signed a federal search and seizure warrant that authorized the search of 349 Noble Avenue, in Bridgeport, which is one half of a multifamily residence. Specifically, the building at the premises is a duplex, with 349 being designated as the premises on the left when facing it from the street and 351 being the premises on the right. On February 1, 2017, state and federal law enforcement agents executed the search warrant at approximately 6 a.m. and entered through the rear of 351 Noble Avenue instead of 349 Noble Avenue, which was the address authorized by the warrant. The search of 351 Noble Avenue revealed the presence of controlled substances and weapons, for which the defendants, who were inside 351 Noble Avenue at the time of the search and claim to be residents of that premises, were arrested and charged with various offenses.3
Thereafter, the defendants filed motions to suppress the evidence seized from 351 Noble Avenue. They claimed, inter alia, that because the search warrant issued by the federal magistrate authorized a search of the property identified as 349 Noble Avenue, the search of 351 Noble Avenue was conducted without a warrant and the seizure of items therein could not be justified pursuant to any exception to the warrant requirement. A hearing was held on the motions to suppress on July 23, 2018.
In its memorandum of decision granting the motions to suppress, the court found The court quoted a description of the property that was set forth in an affidavit in support of the warrant, which described the property as
The court further stated: "Detective Slaiby testified he was a part of a task force team numbering some twenty law enforcement officers from various state and federal agencies, including Homeland Security, that executed the search warrant intended for [the] address ... 349 Noble Avenue. That task force at 6 a.m. on February 1, 2017, executed the search warrant signed by the [federal] magistrate authorizing the search of 349 Noble Avenue, not 351 Noble Avenue. Testimony revealed that 351 Noble Avenue is a separate and unconnected [unit].
[Moreover] 349 Noble Avenue and 351 Noble Avenue do not share a living room, kitchen or basement. The building is a duplex. The gas and electric meters are separate.
His bedroom was on the first floor and ... his door had a lock. When the police executed the warrant, he was sleeping in his room with the door locked. As a result, the police knocked in the door when they searched his room. The police seized his passport, his pistol permit, his birth certificate, and his driver's license. The driver's license was in his wallet, which was on the dresser in the room. The address listed on his license was 351 Noble Avenue. He testified that 349 Noble Avenue and 351 Noble Avenue have separate driveways, separate front entrances, separate mailboxes, separate electric meters located in the front of the [duplex] and separate gas meters located on the side [of] the [duplex]. Once inside 351 Noble Avenue you cannot enter 349 Noble Avenue. Each [unit] has a separate living room and kitchen.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McNamara v. McNamara
...this court, on multiple occasions, has declined to review a claim of error related to such ruling. See, e.g., State v. Lyons , 203 Conn. App. 551, 569, 248 A.3d 727 (2021) (declining to consider whether court's admission of challenged testimony was abuse of its discretion when appellant fai......
- Lindquist v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n
-
McNamara v. McNamara
... ... standard.'' Tolman v. Banach , 82 Conn.App ... 263, 265, 843 A.2d 650 (2004); see also State v ... Fernandez , 254 Conn. 637, 647, 758 A.2d 842 (2000), ... cert. denied, 532 U.S. 913, 121 S.Ct. 1247, 149 L.Ed.2d 153 ... to review a claim of error related to such ruling. See, e.g., ... State v. Lyons , 203 Conn.App. 551, 569, 248 A.3d 727 ... (2021) (declining to consider whether court's admission ... of challenged testimony was abuse ... ...
- Mecca v. Mecca