Summary
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress a shotgun seized during a search of his home. The court held that a fourteen-month gap between an informant's photograph of the firearm and the issuance of the search warrant did not render the affidavit stale, as firearms are durable goods likely to remain in a defendant's possession. Applying the totality of the circumstances test, the court found sufficient probable cause to support the warrant.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the fourteen‑month‑old information in the warrant affidavit was stale such that probable cause was lacking
- Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the shotgun evidence
Holdings
- The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress; the passage of fourteen months did not render the information stale and provided a reasonable basis for finding probable cause.
- The trial court did not err; the denial is affirmed.
Key quotations
“When reviewing the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, the standard of review to be applied depends on whether the challenge asserted on appeal is to the factual basis of the trial court’s decision or to its legal conclusions.” (at 6)
“The determination of probable cause is reached by applying a totality of circumstances test.” (at 8)
Factual background
A citizen informant photographed a shotgun in the defendant's home office fourteen months before a search warrant was issued. The informant also testified that the defendant kept a firearm by his bed. Based on this information, a warrant was obtained and a shotgun was seized during the search.
Procedural history
The defendant entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence seized from his home. He appealed, arguing that the warrant affidavit relied on stale information (a photograph taken fourteen months earlier). The appellate court reviewed the denial and affirmed.