State of Connecticut v. Charles Spencer (2013)

DECISION RE MOTION TO SUPPRESS

The defendant filed a Motion to Suppress dated July 10, 2012 requesting the court to suppress any and all direct and/or indirect fruits of a search and seizure conducted at his residence at 126 Howard Avenue, Ansonia on April 23, 2010 claiming that a “boiler plate” affidavit was used in support for said search.   Argument was heard by this court on May 16, 2013.

Simply stated, the defendant claims that the warrant was defective as there was very little evidence pointing specifically to the address of 126 Howard Avenue and requested a review under State v. Diaz, 226 Conn. 514, 524–25 (1993).

This court has reviewed the 17–page affidavit supporting the warrant and finds that the warrant details the investigation of an on-going narcotic trafficking operation based on surveillance techniques including the use of GPS data and information obtained from confidential informants.   The affidavit explains in detail a pattern of drug trafficking activity, identifies the individuals involved, identifies the vehicles used and tracked by GPS, and outlines the information obtained by confidential informants.   It further states that the group would make quick stops between residences during their daily trafficking routines to resupply themselves with “saleable” quantities of narcotics.   The affidavit alleges that the defendant, Charles Spencer, is the father of two drug traffickers, both of whom have been observed coming and going from the defendant's residence between drug transactions.   Further, the affidavit states that electronic weapons were located at the defendant's residence during a prior investigation into narcotic activity and stolen firearms.

After a reconsideration of the search warrant affidavit in question, giving deference to the reasonable inferences that could be drawn by the issuing judge, this court finds that, based upon all the circumstances and explicit facts set forth in the affidavit, probable cause was established to issue the search and seizure warrant.

For these reasons, the defendant's Motion to Suppress is denied.

The Court

Denise D. Markle, Judge

Markle, Denise D., J.