State v. Williams
Citation | 88 A.3d 534,311 Conn. 626 |
Decision Date | 29 April 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 19103.,19103. |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Chumell WILLIAMS. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Neal Cone, senior assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state's attorney, Jayne Kennedy, senior assistant state's attorney, and Jennifer F. Miller, special deputy assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
ROGERS, C.J., and PALMER, ZARELLA, EVELEIGH, McDONALD, ESPINOSA and VERTEFEUILLE, Js.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether we should overrule our precedent holding that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement under the state constitution applies to a closed container located in the trunk of a vehicle. The defendant, Chumell Williams, appeals 1 from the judgment of conviction, rendered following his conditional plea of nolo contendere; see General Statutes § 54–94a; of one count of possession of narcotics with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a–278(b), one count of possession of narcotics with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a–279(d), and one count of possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2009) § 29–38. On appeal, the defendant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress with respect to the narcotics and handgun that were found in a plastic bag inside the trunk of his vehicle. In doing so, the defendant asks this court to decide whether article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution 2 prohibits the warrantless search of a closed container located in the trunk of a vehicle conducted during an otherwise constitutional warrantless search of an automobile. We answer the question in the negative and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In its oral decision on the defendant's motion to suppress, the trial court made the following factual findings. “On March 25, 2010, three Waterbury police officers were patrolling Waterbury streets in an unmarked police vehicle and in plainclothes. At approximately 9 p.m., the officers stopped their vehicle at a red light at the intersection of East Farm [Street] and North Main Street. This intersection is part of a high crime area where the police have made numerous arrests for narcotic and firearm offenses. The area is well lit and the visibility was good that evening.
On the basis of these findings, the trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress. The defendant subsequently entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere and the court rendered judgment of guilty in accordance with the defendant's plea. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the defendant does not challenge the search of the passenger compartment of his vehicle or the seizure of the narcotics found in the center console and on the passenger side floor. Nor does he argue that the police did not have probable cause to search the trunk. The defendant's sole claim is that the search of the bags inside the trunk, which revealed powder cocaine, marijuana and a handgun, could not be conducted within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement under the state constitution. The defendant contends that when the police have probable cause to believe that an item contains contraband or evidence of a crime, after a proper seizure, they must obtain a warrant to search any such item unless exigent circumstances exist.
In support of his argument, which requires us to reconsider our prior holdings that our state constitution allows the police to conduct a warrantless search of a closed container located in an automobile pursuant to the automobile exception, the defendant claims that a Geisler3 analysis demonstrates that our state constitution affords greater protections than the federal constitution. He first details the sociological and policy considerations that weigh in favor of excluding the search of closed containers located in vehicles from the ambit of the automobile exception under the state constitution. He identifies several instances in which this court has diverged from search and seizure jurisprudence as it has been applied under the federal constitution, and highlights a number of sister states that also have taken such an approach. Acknowledging that the fourth amendment to the federal constitution permits the search of a closed container located in a vehicle that properly is being searched pursuant to the automobile exception, the defendant urges this court to recognize an additional exigency requirement to the search of a closed container under the state constitution. 4 Applying the Geisler factors, we reject his claim and conclude that the state constitution does not afford greater protections than the federal constitution under the facts of this case.5
We do not lightly overrule precedent. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bateson v. Weddle, 306 Conn. 1, 9–10, 48 A.3d 652 (2012).
In considering whether this court should overturn the holdings of State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 120, 547 A.2d 10 (1988), which recognized the automobile exception under the state constitution, and State v. Longo, 243 Conn. 732, 739, 708 A.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Skok, SC 19415
...is permissible under article first, § 7." (Citation omitted; footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Williams, 311 Conn. 626, 634, 88 A.3d 534 (2014). Furthermore, because Connecticut courts have not yet considered whether article first, § 7, provides greater protection ......
-
State v. Kono, SC 19613
...Corp., 317 Conn. 357, 402–403, 119 A.3d 462 (2015) ; State v. Kelly, 313 Conn. 1, 12, 95 A.3d 1081 (2014) ; State v. Williams, 311 Conn. 626, 628–29, 88 A.3d 534 (2014) ; State v. DeFusco, 224 Conn. 627, 631–32, 620 A.2d 746 (1993) ; State v. Marsala, 216 Conn. 150, 159–61, 579 A.2d 58 (199......
-
State v. Saturno
...permitted under the fourth amendment is permissible under article first, § 7.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Williams, 311 Conn. 626, 634, 88 A.3d 534 (2014). The defendant fails to provide any historical insights into the intent of the framers that support his position. Acco......
-
State v. Storm, 16-0362
...(Ark. 2013) ; People v. Zuniga, 372 P.3d 1052, 1056 (Colo. 2016) ; People v. Edwards, 836 P.2d 468, 471 (Colo. 1992) ; State v. Williams, 311 Conn. 626, 88 A.3d 534, 547 (2014) ; Reeder v. State, Nos. 552,1999, 583,1999, 2001 WL 355732, at *2 (Del. Mar. 26, 2001) ; State v. Betz, 815 So.2d ......