State v. Police

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Citation343 Conn. 274,273 A.3d 211
Docket NumberSC 20528
Parties STATE of Connecticut v. Terrance POLICE
Decision Date10 May 2022

Pamela S. Nagy, supervisory assistant public defender, with whom, on the brief, was Mark Rademacher, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state's attorney, with whom were Richard J. Colangelo, Jr., former chief state's attorney, and, on the brief, Paul J. Ferencek, state's attorney, and Jennifer F. Miller, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js.

KELLER, J.

This appeal presents a significant issue of first impression not only for this state but, to our knowledge, the rest of the country as well: whether a John Doe arrest warrant that identified the suspect on the basis of a general physical description and several mixed partial DNA profiles to which the suspect may or may not have been a contributor, and that did not state the probability that a random person would match any of those profiles, satisfies the particularity requirement of the fourth amendment to the United States constitution for purposes of commencing a prosecution within the applicable statute of limitations.

After he was charged with one count each of robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree, the defendant, Terrance Police, filed a motion to dismiss the information on the ground that the charges were time barred by the five year statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes (Rev. to 2011) § 54-193 (b).1 The trial court denied the motion, and, subsequently, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere conditioned on his right to appeal. The trial court thereafter sentenced the defendant to ten years of imprisonment on each count, five of which were mandatory, to run concurrently, for a total effective sentence of ten years of imprisonment. On appeal,2 the defendant claims, inter alia, that a John Doe arrest warrant that identifies the suspect on the basis of a general description and several mixed partial DNA profiles is void for lack of particularity and, therefore, cannot commence prosecution for purposes of satisfying the statute of limitations. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, as found by the trial court, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. On the afternoon of October 10, 2012, Norwalk police officers responded to reports of a robbery and shooting outside of the Stop and Shop supermarket on Connecticut Avenue in Norwalk. Upon arrival, they found the victim in the parking lot, suffering from a gunshot wound to the abdomen. The victim reported that she had been standing near her car looking at her phone when an unknown black male, whom she described as approximately eighteen to thirty years old with a medium build and a light beard, wearing jeans and a dark hooded sweatshirt, attacked her. The victim informed the police that her assailant had opened the driver's side door of her car, pushed her inside, and, during a struggle, shot her in the abdomen with a small silver handgun. Fearing for her life, the victim surrendered her wedding and engagement rings, as well as an iPhone with a pink Kate Spade phone case, to the suspect, who then fled on foot with the victim's belongings toward a nearby Best Buy store.

The police subsequently obtained footage from several video surveillance cameras in the area, all of which captured images of the suspect fleeing the scene. The footage depicts the suspect wearing a dark colored zip up hooded sweatshirt and using his left hand to pull the hood over his head. The police thereafter conducted a search of the area behind the Best Buy store, where they recovered a sweater and a dark blue zip up hooded sweatshirt with a Kate Spade cell phone case in the pocket, which the victim later confirmed belonged to her. From the same area, the police also recovered a small, silver .22 magnum five shot revolver containing two spent shell casings and three live rounds. The recovered items were later sent to the state forensic science laboratory (laboratory) for testing. The laboratory issued its DNA report on December 21, 2012. It concluded that the various pieces of crime scene evidence were found to have on them mixtures of DNA for which there were multiple contributors and, notably, that the victim was eliminated as the source of, or as a contributor to, those mixed profiles.

In an effort to identify the perpetrator, the police released the video surveillance footage to the public. On December 29, 2012, an anonymous caller contacted the police and stated that the man seen in the video footage looked like his cousin, the defendant. Although the defendant had denied any involvement in the crime to his mother, the anonymous caller indicated that the defendant had told other relatives that he had shot the victim. In investigating this tip, the police were informed, albeit erroneously, that, in 2008, in connection with a prior felony conviction, a sample of the defendant's DNA had been obtained and entered into the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).3 The police thereafter submitted the DNA profiles generated from the crime scene evidence to CODIS for comparison, but there were no matches. Upon receiving the results of the search, the police contacted the laboratory to ensure that the database was current, and the laboratory indicated that it was. Because the CODIS search failed to identify the defendant as a contributor to any of the DNA profiles, and because the police were under the impression that the defendant's DNA was in CODIS, the police ceased their investigation of him. The police nevertheless continued their investigation of the crime by conducting weekly searches of both the Connecticut and national DNA databases and by pursuing other potential suspects. Although all investigative leads were exhausted by July, 2013, the police continued to conduct periodic searches through CODIS, each time yielding a negative result.

On April 6, 2017, approximately six months before the expiration of the five year statute of limitations, the Norwalk police applied for a John Doe arrest warrant, alleging in the sworn affidavit that there was probable cause for the statute of limitations to be tolled pending the arrest of an unknown male responsible for the 2012 assault and robbery of the victim, a person allegedly identifiable through the DNA profiles obtained from the crime scene evidence and general descriptions given by the victim and witnesses to the attack.4 On May 1, 2017, the trial court signed the John Doe arrest warrant on the basis of the information contained in the affidavit.

Approximately one year later, on April 2, 2018, the Norwalk police received a phone call from a woman who reported that she had seen the video footage released to the public years prior and recognized the perpetrator as her child's father, the defendant. The woman informed the police that the defendant also had confessed to her that he committed the 2012 assault and robbery of the victim. Given this new development, Sergeant Paul Podgorski of the Norwalk Police Department contacted the laboratory and spoke with forensic science examiner Jessica Best. Best explained that, although the defendant's DNA was in CODIS,5 it was possible that no match was ever made to the DNA found at the crime scene because of the low quality of the defendant's sample and because the DNA profiles generated from the crime scene evidence were mixtures of the DNA of several different individuals.6 Best therefore recommended a direct comparison with a sample of the defendant's DNA via a buccal swabbing. Accordingly, the police drafted a search warrant for the defendant's DNA, which the trial court signed on April 6, 2018.

On April 13, 2018, approximately six months after the statute of limitations had expired, the laboratory retested the crime scene evidence and compared the defendant's DNA against the new DNA profiles generated from the retesting. In a supplemental DNA report, the laboratory concluded as follows: (1) The results from the inside sleeve cuffs and neck hem of the sweatshirt were consistent with the DNA profile being a mixture of four contributors, with the profile being at least 100 billion times more likely to occur if it originated from the defendant and three unknown individuals than if it originated from four unknown individuals; (2) the results from the right handle of the .22 magnum handgun were consistent with the DNA profile being a mixture of three contributors, with the profile being at least 100 billion times more likely to occur if it originated from the defendant and two unknown individuals than if it originated from three unknown individuals; and (3) the results from the inside sleeve cuffs and neck hem of the sweater were consistent with the DNA profile being a mixture of four contributors with the profile being at least 100 billion times more likely to occur if it originated from the defendant and three unknown individuals than if it originated from four unknown individuals.7 The rest of the results were either inconclusive or excluded the defendant.

On May 4, 2018, the police arrested the defendant pursuant to the 2017 John Doe arrest warrant. After his arrest, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the information, claiming, inter alia, that the state had failed to bring the charges against him within the applicable five year statute of limitations. Specifically, the defendant argued that (1) "it is the role of the legislature, not the courts, to determine the statutes of limitations and any exceptions thereto," (2) "the state's use of a John Doe DNA arrest warrant to satisfy the statute of limitations thwarts the intent and purpose of the statute and does not meet the particularity requirement of the fourth amendment to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Morel-Vargas
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 10, 2022
    ...of the prosecutor's questions and not the information elicited. See, e.g., State v. Jose G. , 290 Conn. 331, 343, 963 A.2d 42 (2009) ("An 343 Conn. 274 objection that a question is leading is a procedural objection aimed at the manner in which a question is being asked, not at the evidence ......
  • AGW Sono Partners, LLC v. Downtown Soho, LLC
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 10, 2022
    ...equitable manner that will leave something remaining on the "other side" as we attempt to identify a "new normal" while entering the third 273 A.3d 211 year of this pandemic. We therefore are left to rely on the political branches of our federal and state governments to identify and impleme......
  • State v. Waters
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • August 2, 2022
    ...280 A.3d 617 beyond 214 Conn.App. 314 a reasonable doubt." (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Police , 343 Conn. 274, 288, 273 A.3d 211 (2022)."The first two [prongs of Golding ] involve a determination of whether the claim is reviewable; the second two ... invol......
  • In re R.Z.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • October 12, 2022
    ...made almost no effort to educate the trial court on the factual and scientific basis of Gallman's opinions"); State v. Terrance Police, 343 Conn. 274, 306, 273 A.3d 211 (2022) ("[T]o satisfy the particularity requirement of the fourth amendment, the affidavit accompanying a John Doe DNA arr......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT