Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. White

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Litchfield, Litchfield

May 25, 2016

State of Connecticut
v.
Andre White Opinion No. 133782

          Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Danaher, John A., J.

          RULING RE DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING PURSUANT TO FRANKS V. DELAWARE, 436 U.S. 154 (1978)

          JOHN A. DANAHER, III J.

         By a motion dated November 2, 2015, and by a second, virtually identical motion filed on November 20, 2015, the self-represented defendant, Andre White, moved for a " Franks Hearing, " and sought an order " to dismiss probable cause and dismiss the evidence that was seized pursuant to the probable cause for the following hereunder: 1) that the affidavit(s) in this case prepared and served by the constable was knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, made incomplete statements, half truths, commissions, and dishonest innuendo concerning items necessary for the finding of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant." It is on the foregoing basis that the defendant seeks an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

         The motion is denied.

         I

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         The defendant challenges a search warrant affidavit signed on July 30, 2013 and an arrest warrant affidavit signed on August 12, 2013. The state objected to the motion by memorandum filed on April 18, 2016. The matter came before the court and was heard on April 29, 2016.

         II

         THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

         A

         The Defendant's Position

         The defendant made several representations at oral argument in support of his motion for a Franks hearing, and supplemented his argument with an exhibit. Specifically, he focused on paragraph 36 of the search warrant affidavit and claimed that the following false entries appeared in that affidavit: 1) " the approximated . . . amount of cash that was taken"; 2) the allegation in the affidavit that the defendant cashed stolen coins at a Stop and Shop store is false because the defendant examined the surveillance video and he contends that he does not appear on that video; 3) the value of all items taken in the robbery " is the wrong estimated price . . . according to my findings"; 4) the allegation that a co-defendant " swiped a stolen credit card is not the exact time that the surveillance showed in the video footage."

         The defendant further argued that the same misrepresentations appear in the arrest warrant, and in addition, paragraph 71 of that warrant is subject to challenge in that 1) the allegation that two people are friends on Facebook, and that they entered and exited a store, does not constitute probable cause, and 2) the affiants were reckless in describing co-defendant Henry Le's address as 29 Foot Path Lane when, in fact, it was the defendant and not Henry Le who lived at that address.

         The defendant supported his argument with " five [sic] tangible pieces of evidence, " all of which were marked as defendant's exhibit A. Those exhibits are: 1) three reports showing that Henry Le resides at 29 Footpath Lane; 2) an inventory of items seized following a search relative to " Andre White, 29 Footpath Lane, 1st Floor, East Hartford, CT"; a copy of page 8 of the July 30, 2013 search warrant affidavit which the defendant challenges; 3) a copy of email traffic reflecting information about a " denied credit card transaction, " apparently at a Stop and Shop store, on April 8, 2013 at approximately 10:46 a.m. for a credit card ending in 2561; and 4) a Coinstar receipt from Stop and Shop, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.