Argued
November 16, 2018
Procedural
History
Information
charging the defendant with the crimes of criminal possession
of a pistol, carrying a pistol without a permit, possession
of less than onehalf ounce of cannabistype substance, breach
of peace in the second degree and interfering with an
officer, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial
district of New Haven, geographical area number twentythree,
where the court, B. Fischer, J., denied the
defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence;
thereafter, the defendant was presented to the court,
Cradle, J., on a conditional plea of nolo contendere
to the charges of criminal possession of a pistol and
carrying a pistol without a permit; judgment of guilty in
accordance with the plea, from which the defendant appealed.
Reversed; further proceedings.
Daniel
M. Erwin, for the appellant (defendant).
Jennifer F. Miller, assistant state's attorney, with
whom, on the brief, were Patrick J. Griffin, state's
attorney, and Devant Joiner, assistant state's attorney,
for the appellee (state).
Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins
and Ecker, Js. [*]
OPINION
ROBINSON, C. J.
The
sole issue in this appeal is whether, under Navarette
v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 134 S.Ct. 1683,
188 L.Ed.2d 680 (2014), the trial court properly denied a
motion to suppress evidence discovered by the police during
the forcible detention of the defendant, Quentine L. Davis,
pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88
S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), on the basis of an
anonymous telephone tip regarding ‘‘a young man
that has a handgun.'' After the police detained the
defendant, they saw him drop an object in a garbage can, a
subsequent search of which revealed a handgun. The defendant
was arrested and charged with, inter alia, criminal
possession of a pistol in violation of General Statutes
§ 53a-217c and carrying a pistol without a permit in
violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a).[1] The defendant
moved to suppress the handgun, claiming that the evidence
resulting from the search of the garbage can was tainted as
the result of his unlawful seizure. Specifically, the
defendant claimed that the anonymous tip did not give rise to
a reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in, or was about
to be engaged in, criminal activity, and, therefore, that his
detention violated his right to be free from unreasonable
seizures under the fourth amendment to the United States
constitution[2] and article first, §§ 7 and 9,
of the Connecticut constitution. The trial court denied the
motion to suppress. Thereafter, the defendant entered a
conditional plea of nolo contendere to the gun charges
pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a. See also footnote
4 of this opinion. The trial court accepted that plea and
rendered a judgment of conviction. This appeal
followed.[3] We agree with the defendant's claim
that his detention violated his fourth amendment rights under
Navarette. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial
court improperly denied the motion to suppress and reverse
the judgment of the trial court.
The
record reveals the following facts that were found by the
trial court or are undisputed, and procedural history. At
approximately 7:26 p.m. on the evening of September 28, 2016,
the New Haven Police Department received an anonymous 911
telephone call regarding ‘‘a young man that has a
handgun.'' The caller reported that he could see
‘‘a whole bunch'' of men between 472 and
476 Winthrop Avenue in New Haven, some of whom were gathered
around a black Infiniti. The caller could not
‘‘say exactly how many'' men there were
because they were crossing back and forth across the street.
The caller stated that he could see the handgun from his
window but that he could not identify the specific person who
was carrying it because all of the men were wearing dark
clothing. When asked, the caller denied that the men were
fighting or arguing. When the dispatcher inquired, the caller
declined to give his name or telephone number.
The
dispatcher relayed the anonymous tip to police officers on
the beat. Within minutes, three police cruisers containing at
least five uniformed police officers arrived at the scene. At
least one of the cruisers was sounding its siren. As the
police officers exited the cruisers, a number of them
unholstered their guns. The officers considered this location
to be in a high crime area.
The
officers observed approximately six men standing around a
black Infiniti. As the police approached the men, they walked
away. Officer Thomas Glynn ordered them to stop, and five of
them did. Glynn and another officer, Matthew Collier,
recognized two of the men from previous criminal
interactions. The sixth individual, later identified as the
defendant, continued to walk away from the police down
Winthrop Avenue, despite additional orders to stop by Collier
and Glynn. The defendant held his right hand at his waist in
front of his body, extended his arm, and dropped an object
into a garbage can. Shortly after dropping the object, the
defendant turned toward Collier and Glynn and said something
to the effect of ‘‘who, me?'' At that
point, the police arrested the defendant. A subsequent search
of the garbage can produced a 9 millimeter handgun.
The
defendant was charged with criminal possession of a pistol in
violation of § 53a-217c and carrying a pistol without a
permit in violation of § 29-35 (a).[4] Thereafter, he
filed a motion to suppress the handgun, claiming that his
detention violated the fourth amendment of the United States
constitution and article first, §§ 7 and 9, of the
Connecticut constitution, and that the search of the garbage
can was tainted by his unconstitutional seizure.
Specifically, the defendant contended that the anonymous
telephone tip was not sufficiently reliable to give rise to a
reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal
activity. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial
court determined that the police effectuated an investigative
stop of the defendant when Glynn initially ordered the six
men to stop.[5] The trial court further concluded that,
under the United States Supreme Court's decision in
Navarette v. California, supra, 572 U.S.
393, the anonymous telephone tip was sufficiently reliable to
give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was
engaged in criminal activity because (1) the caller was
relaying his firsthand, eyewitness observations, (2) the
caller's observations were contemporaneous with the call,
(3) the caller was using the 911 system, and (4) the caller
was reporting what would have been a ‘‘startling
event'' for a person in his position. In addition,
the trial court found it ‘‘significant''
that the police officers knew that this location was in a
high crime area and that the six individuals who were
gathered around the black Infiniti immediately began to
disperse upon seeing the police. The trial court also noted,
without further comment, that the police recognized two of
the individuals from prior criminal encounters. Accordingly,
the trial court denied the defendant's motion to
suppress.
Thereafter,
the defendant filed a ‘‘motion to reconsider
and/or articulate'' in which he contended that the
trial court's reliance on Navarette was
misplaced because the state had not cited that case. The
defendant further argued that, because Navarette was
based on specific concerns arising in the context of
anonymous tips about drunk driving, it should be limited to
that context. The defendant also requested that the trial
court clarify whether it had rejected his claim under the
state constitution. The trial court summarily denied this
motion.
Thereafter,
the defendant entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere
to the gun charges pursuant to § 54-94a. The trial court
accepted the plea and imposed an effective sentence of ten
years imprisonment, execution suspended after five years,
followed by ...