State of Connecticut v. Charles Spencer (2013)

DECISION RE MOTION TO SUPPRESS

The defendant moves this court to suppress all statements and evidence seized from his residence located on 126 Howard Avenue, Ansonia.   The defendant claims the search was “warrantless” because the items seized were not listed in the search warrant itself and therefore was without his consent and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.¹

The State argues that the seizure of the “stun guns” were made when the Ansonia Police were lawfully on the defendant's premises pursuant to a warrant authorizing them to seize firearms and that in the course of the lawful search the police found in plain view the contraband i.e. the three electronic defense weapons and the drug paraphernalia for which the defendant was charged.

Here, the police were aware at the time of the search that the defendant was a convicted felon and they knew he was prohibited under the law from possessing the weapons, and because the items were seized by the police while they were lawfully on the premises pursuant to a search and seizure warrant, the seizure of this contraband in this particular case was permissible.  State v. Onofrio, 170 Conn. 23 (1979), State v. Brown, 279 Conn. 493 (2006).

Accordingly, the defendant's Motion to Suppress is denied.

The Court

Denise D. Markle, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The court does not address the second claim moving to suppress any statements made by the defendant in violation of the Fifth Amendment because counsel did not make any claim at time of argument and because the court was not presented with any evidence that the State intends to offer into evidence any such statements alleged to have been made by the defendant..  FN1. The court does not address the second claim moving to suppress any statements made by the defendant in violation of the Fifth Amendment because counsel did not make any claim at time of argument and because the court was not presented with any evidence that the State intends to offer into evidence any such statements alleged to have been made by the defendant.

Markle, Denise D., J.