State v. Samuolis

• Decision Date: 09 August 2022
• Docket Number: SC 20299
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Andrew SAMUOLIS
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

344 Conn. 200

278 A.3d 1027

STATE of Connecticut

v.Andrew SAMUOLIS

SC 20299

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 24, 2022

Officially released August 9, 2022

Jeffrey C. Kestenband, Middletown, for the appellant (defendant).

Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state's attorney, with whom were Andrew J. Slitt, senior assistant state's attorney, and, on the brief, Anne F. Mahoney, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

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

KELLER, J.

Following a trial to the court, the defendant, Andrew Samuolis, was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a, assault in the first degree by means of the discharge of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (5), and attempt to commit assault in the first degree by means of the discharge of a firearm in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-59 (a) (5). In his direct appeal to this court; see General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3) ; the defendant challenges only his murder conviction. The sole issue is whether the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from his home, specifically, the dead body of the defendant's father, John Samuolis, on the grounds that (1) the police officers’ warrantless entry into the Samuolis home was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment to the United States constitution, or, alternatively, (2) the defendant's alleged actions in shooting at the officers upon their initial entry attenuated the taint from that unlawful initial entry and justified their subsequent reentries into the home. We affirm the trial court's judgment on the basis of the first ground.

The trial court made the following findings of fact. "On [Friday] June 21, 2013, Willimantic Police Officer[s] [Amy] Hartman [and Elvin Salas were] dispatched to 31 Tunxis Lane [in Willimantic] to check on the well-being of John Samuolis [Samuolis], the owner of the property. Earlier in the day, [Salas] had been on routine patrol on the street and hailed by Mark Curtis, who lived next door to Samuolis. Curtis related that he and the neighbors across the street, [Andy and Shirley Lebiszczak], were concerned that they had not seen [Samuolis], who was referred to as the ‘old man,’ in a long time. ...

"At about 7:30 that evening, [while it was still light out] ... Salas and Hartman arrived ... at [31] Tunxis Lane, which is a split-level style home [on a cul-de-sac] in a residential neighborhood described as ‘quiet.’ ... A car ... was parked in the driveway. Some of the [second floor] windows of the house were open and part[s] of the lawn had been mowed recently. There was no visible accumulation of trash or mail. The officers walked around the house and knocked on the doors, which were locked. They noticed a cat in the window. Salas called into the open windows announcing their presence, but they received no response. They concluded that no one was home.

"The officers then spoke with Curtis and the Lebiszczaks and learned that the house was occupied by [Samuolis] and his adult son, [the defendant], and that the [defendant's] mother ... was deceased. The neighbors also noted that [the defendant] was ‘a little weird’ and ‘not all there’ and that he might be in the house. ... The officers intended to return later that evening to recheck the house but ... other duties ... prevented them from returning.

"On [the morning of Monday] June 25, 2013 ... Curtis called the Willimantic Police [Department] and asked them to recheck the Samuolis house because [of changes since the prior visit, namely] there was now chicken wire covering the lower rear windows of the house and there were a huge number of flies massing at an upper rear window. [Officer Kevin] Winkler was dispatched to the scene, and ... Salas responded as back up when he recognized the address being broadcast. ... [N]either officer used [his] lights or sirens on [his] way to 31 Tunxis Lane. ... Since Salas’ earlier visit, the weather had been extremely hot and dry.

"Both officers exited their vehicles and walked around the house. They found the doors were all locked and all the curtains were [now] drawn. The front upper windows of the house were open. Salas saw [that] the car was still parked in the same place and ran the [license] plate. The registration came back to 31 Tunxis Lane. Salas did not check to see if any other vehicles were registered to the house.

"The officers also had a short discussion with Curtis, who told them that [the defendant] had put the chicken wire up after the police had left the home [following] the previous well-being check.¹ Curtis also pointed out the mass of flies at the upper rear window. Salas told Winkler that neither the wire nor the flies had been there earlier. Salas, based on his experience, thought that the sheer number of flies indicated that there might be a dead body in the house.

"Curtis offered the use of a ladder, and Winkler put it in place and climbed up to look into the upper rear window. The window was propped open slightly by an air freshener. There were flies everywhere, but no odor. Winkler looked in but was unable to see anything. The officers did not have a phone number for the house; nor did they ask Curtis [if he had] any contact information. The officers were now concerned for the well-being of the ‘old man,’ [Samuolis], and his son, [the defendant], due to his possible ‘state of mind.’

"Salas and Winkler thought that an entry into the house might be necessary, so they called their supervisor, Sergeant [Roberto] Rosado, and related what they had found. Rosado came to the scene without using his lights and siren, [arriving a few minutes later] .... After being apprised of the current situation and what had transpired on June 21, Rosado concluded that there was a dead body in the house and that they would have to make an entry into the house in order to search for it and anyone else who might need help. ... [T]hese officers ... did not believe that criminal activity had occurred. ... Winkler move[d] [the ladder around the house] to the front upper windows to gain entry [into a better lit room].² The officers testified that they would have handled the issues differently if they were not in community caretaking mode.³ ...

"Winkler then ascended the ladder [and] cut the window screen .... He told Rosado and Salas that he would go down and open the front door and let them in. ... [After he entered the second floor of the residence] Winkler heard a noise from the basement. Winkler stopped and announced his presence as a police officer and waited, but he heard nothing in response. Winkler then went down the stairs to the front door, which was barred by a heavy metal bar. He removed the bar and tossed it ... toward the basement .... Winkler then opened the front door ... while keeping an eye on the basement ....

"At that point, Winkler saw a rifle barrel stick out around the wall at the bottom of the basement stairs carried by a male who was dressed ‘for battle’ in camouflaged clothing and a ballistic style vest. The male aimed and fired the weapon at Winkler, hitting him in the elbow. This male was later identified as the defendant ...."⁴ (Footnotes added.)

The officers then fled from the home. Salas saw the defendant run through the backyard of the house carrying the rifle and disappear into the woods. Rosado radioed police dispatch and reported what had occurred, and, thereafter, other officers arrived at the scene to assist. Detective Lucien Frechette received a text message that a Willimantic police officer had been shot and drove to the police station, where "he gathered information about the residence and the family, including a phone number. Frechette donned protective gear and went to the command center, which had been set up a short distance from 31 Tunxis Lane. Frechette asked for and received permission to call the phone number he had, and then he called it from the command center. No one answered the call, and he left a message on a recording device."

At about 12:53 p.m., the state police reported that they had captured the defendant and that he was in their custody. "As soon as Frechette and the other officers learned that the defendant was in custody, he and other [special operations officers] entered the house to secure it and [to] search for any injured parties. This was at about 1:02 p.m. Frechette observed that the door to the rear second floor bedroom was sealed with tape and plastic and a rope. Suspecting [that] it might be booby-trapped, Frechette ordered everyone out of the house ....

"Once outside, Frechette went up a ladder to the rear second floor window and raised the window enough to lean inside. The flies were still thick. Frechette saw a badly decomposed body on the floor directly below the window [wrapped in plastic]. He also visually inspected the room for booby traps, but found nothing. No physical evidence was seized during this protective sweep. The Connecticut State Police then procured a search warrant, which was executed later, and physical evidence [including what was later confirmed to be the dead body of Samuolis] was seized."

While these events were unfolding, the defendant waived his rights and voluntarily gave a statement to Connecticut State Police Detective Adam Pillsbury. Prior to taking the defendant's statement, "Pillsbury did not know that [Samuolis] was dead or that his body was still in the house. The defendant told Pillsbury that the police had come to the house to check on his father. The defendant stated that he had shot his father several months before. He further stated that the body was still in the house, and it had started to smell so he sealed the room. Pillsbury then called his superiors to tell them that there was a body in the house."

The defendant was charged with murder, assault in the first degree, and several counts of attempt to commit assault in...