State of Connecticut v. Marlon S. Reddick (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article One, Sections Seven and Eight of the Connecticut Constitution, General Statutes § 54-33f and Practice Book § 41-13, the defendant has filed a motion to suppress from evidence certain items seized by the police from the defendant during a search of the defendant's motor vehicle on September 5, 2009.¹

On September 5, 2009 at approximately 11:00 p.m. West Haven police officers Wolf and Ciccosanti were on patrol in the area of Elm Street and Kimberly Avenue in West Haven, Connecticut.   At that time, they were assigned to the Community Crime Suppression Unit and were parked in their unmarked police cruiser in an alleyway facing the traffic light at the intersection of Elm Street and Kimberly Avenue.   They observed a red Ford pickup truck with a cracked windshield pass them and turn into a service road leading to a local motel parking lot.   Approximately five minutes later the truck reappeared and left the motel service road traveling toward the traffic light where the officers' vehicle was positioned.   As the truck passed the police cruiser the officers noted that the brake lights, the tail lights and the license plate lights on the truck were inoperable.   As the defendant's vehicle made a left turn the officers noted that no turn signal light was activated by the driver of the vehicle.   The officers pulled the defendant's vehicle over.   Officer Ciccosanti approached the driver's side of the defendant's truck, and Officer Wolf approached the passenger's side.   The officers wore plain clothes with their badges displayed.   Officer Ciccosanti spoke to the defendant and requested that the defendant produce the “paperwork” for the vehicle and the defendant's driver's license.

After giving the defendant an opportunity to search for the proper paperwork, Ciccosanti looked into the interior of the vehicle which he illuminated with his flashlight.   In plain view near the center console, Ciccosanti viewed a clear plastic bag containing white pills and tablets.   At that time he requested that the defendant exit the vehicle, which the defendant did.   He requested that the defendant proceed to the rear of the truck where Officer Wolf was positioned and the defendant complied.   Ciccosanti then proceeded to reach into the interior of the truck cab and retrieved the plastic bag containing the pills and tablets.   Ciccosanti then handed the bag to Wolf. In response to questions from the officers, the defendant responded that he had obtained the pills and tablets from a friend and that the defendant believed that they were over-the-counter sleeping pills and/or pain, pills, but the defendant was unsure.   In response to further questioning from the officers, the defendant denied that there was any contraband in the cab of the truck and consented to a search of the driver-passenger cab.   The defendant had been patted down by the officers, but was not handcuffed at this time.

While Officer Wolf began a search of the vehicle's cab, Officer Ciccosanti stayed to the rear of the truck conversing with the defendant.   The defendant became more nervous and “active” when Officer Wolf folded the front seat forward and observed an open blue duffel bag behind the seat.   The bag was positioned near the middle of the vehicle, but more toward the driver's side.   Upon viewing the open duffel bag, the officer noticed it contained a large green cylinder and a large black cylinder.   A further inspection of the green cylinder revealed it had a wick sticking out of it and contained materials within that created a rattling sound.   Officer Wolf asked the defendant if these cylinders were bombs, and the defendant replied, “they might be.”   Officers Wolf and Cicconsanti then proceeded to escort the defendant off the bridge and shut the bridge to all vehicular traffic.   The New Haven Police bomb squad subsequently arrived at the scene and inspected the devices.

An inspection of the two cylinders revealed that the black cylinder contained a substance suspected to be gunpowder and the green cylinder contained ball bearings.   A further search of the duffel bag resulted in the seizure of a pistol and a sawed-off shotgun with a pistol grip.   A further search of the vehicle's trunk resulted in seizure of body armor.   The entire episode from the time the defendant was initially stopped until the time the New Haven Police bomb squad was summoned was approximately fifteen minutes.   A further search of the vehicle's trunk resulted in seizure of body armor.

The defendant denied that he consented to the search of his vehicle and testified that he was never advised that he could refuse to consent to a search.   He claims the pills found in the vehicle were not in plain view, but were hidden behind a sun visor.   When Ciccosanti searched the vehicle he pulled the visor down and the pills fell out.   He claims that Wolf then began a further search of the vehicle's interior without gaining his consent.   Wolf then grabbed the duffel bag which was zipped shut and proceeded to open it and remove the two cylinders.   The defendant agrees that throughout this procedure he was not handcuffed, but he also did not feel free to leave the scene.   The defendant was not handcuffed until he was placed in the police cruiser.   The defendant is not in disagreement that if the court finds that he consented to the search of his vehicle the resulting search conforms with the guidelines set forth in State v. Jenkins, 298 Conn. 209 (2010).

Upon a review of the exhibits and the weighing the credibility of the defendant's testimony to that of the police officers' testimony the court finds the defendant consented to the search of his vehicle.   The defendant's consent was given freely and voluntarily.   The defendant's consent was obtained during a routine traffic stop that was not unreasonable by fourth amendment standards, even if the officers did not inform the defendant of his right to refuse consent to search, because such failure was mitigated by the defendant's invitation to Officer Wolf to check his vehicle.   There was no evidence to support any claim that Officer Wolf or Officer Ciccosanti behaved in a subtly coercive manner.   The search of the vehicle's interior did not exceed the scope of the defendant's consent.   See State v. Jenkins, supra, 298 Conn. 209.   Accordingly, the Motion to Suppress is hereby denied.

THE COURT

By Judge Richard E. Arnold

FOOTNOTES

FN1. General Statutes § 54-33f reads in relevant parts as follows:(a) A person aggrieved by search and seizure may move the court which has jurisdiction of such person's case ․, for the return of the property and to suppress for use as evidence anything so obtained on the ground that:  (1) The property was seized without a warrant, ․Practice Book § 41-13 reads in relevant part as follows:A person aggrieved by a search and seizure may make a motion to the judicial authority who has jurisdiction of the case, ․ for the return of specific items of property and to suppress their use as evidence on the grounds that:(1) The property was illegally seized without a warrant under circumstances requiring a warrant;  ․.  FN1. General Statutes § 54-33f reads in relevant parts as follows:(a) A person aggrieved by search and seizure may move the court which has jurisdiction of such person's case ․, for the return of the property and to suppress for use as evidence anything so obtained on the ground that:  (1) The property was seized without a warrant, ․Practice Book § 41-13 reads in relevant part as follows:A person aggrieved by a search and seizure may make a motion to the judicial authority who has jurisdiction of the case, ․ for the return of specific items of property and to suppress their use as evidence on the grounds that:(1) The property was illegally seized without a warrant under circumstances requiring a warrant;  ․

Arnold, Richard E., J.