Summary
The Connecticut Appellate Court held that the defendant was seized when he saw an armed police officer rapidly approach his parked vehicle. The court concluded that the officers lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion for the investigative stop because the vehicle and circumstances materially differed from the reliable informant’s description. The court also held that the state could not retain the presentence investigation report without a case-specific showing of need, reversed the judgment, and remanded with directions to suppress the evidence and return the report copies.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when he first saw the officer rapidly approaching his car with a drawn gun.
- Whether the information available to the police before that seizure established reasonable and articulable suspicion that the defendant was the person who had sold drugs to the informant.
- Whether Practice Book § 916 permitted the state to retain a copy of the defendant's presentence investigation report without showing a need particular to the case.
Holdings
- The defendant was seized when he first saw the officer in his rearview mirror because the officer's drawn weapon, rapid approach, and surrounding circumstances constituted a show of authority that would cause a reasonable person to believe he was not free to leave.
- The police lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop the defendant because the vehicle occupied by the defendant differed from the informant's detailed description in every material respect, and the remaining similarities were too general to identify the defendant as the drug seller.
- A party seeking permission under Practice Book § 916 to retain a copy of a presentence investigation report must show a need particular to the case; generalized possibilities of future prosecutions, plea negotiations, parole violations, or sentence reviews are insufficient.
Key quotations
“We find that the defendant was the target of an investigatory stop and, therefore, was seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment to the United States constitution when he first saw Violissi in his rearview mirror.” (16)
“We conclude that the information available to the police did not, without further corroboration, amount to a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the defendant was the person who had sold drugs to the informant.” (21)
“We hold that, in order to invoke the exception to nonaccess found in § 916, a requesting party must make a showing of need particular to the case before it.” (24)
Factual background
A confidential informant conducted a controlled purchase of cocaine and described the seller as a black male named Sonny wearing a red hat and sitting in a 1987 blue Chevrolet Beretta with two other men. Police instead found three men in a well-lighted parking lot in a white 1988 Pontiac LeMans; the vehicle differed from the informant's description in color, make, model, and year, and none of the occupants wore a red hat or engaged in suspicious activity. An officer approached the driver's side rapidly with a drawn gun, and the defendant exited, pushed the officer, and discarded money and contraband before being subdued and arrested.
Procedural history
The trial court denied the defendant's suppression motion, finding that the police had reasonable and articulable suspicion to make an investigative stop and that the suspicion ripened into probable cause when the defendant pushed an officer and discarded money and contraband. At sentencing, the trial court also permitted the state to retain a copy of the presentence investigation report. The Connecticut Appellate Court held that the initial seizure was unsupported by reasonable suspicion and that the state had not shown case-specific need to retain the PSI, reversed the judgment, and remanded with directions.
Remand instructions
Grant the motion to suppress and order the prosecuting attorney to return all copies of the presentence investigation report.