Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court’s dismissal of the state’s appeal from the denial of permission to appeal under General Statutes § 54-96. It held that the Lozada v. Deeds criteria apply when reviewing a trial court’s denial of the state’s permission to appeal and that the state satisfied those criteria. Exercising supervisory authority, the court also reviewed the underlying probable-cause issue and concluded that the trial court had improperly determined that probable cause to arrest the defendant was lacking.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Lozada v. Deeds three-factor inquiry applies when reviewing a trial court's denial of the state's request for permission to appeal under General Statutes § 54-96.
- Whether the Appellate Court improperly dismissed the state's appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after the trial court denied permission to appeal.
- Whether the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant without a warrant under the totality of the circumstances.
- Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its supervisory authority under Practice Book § 60-2 to reach the underlying probable-cause issue.
Holdings
- A trial court abuses its discretion in denying the state permission to appeal under § 54-96 if the state demonstrates that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.
- The Appellate Court improperly dismissed the state's appeal because the state presented issues satisfying the Lozada inquiry, and the trial court abused its discretion by denying permission to appeal.
- The Supreme Court properly exercised its supervisory authority under Practice Book § 60-2 to decide the underlying probable-cause issue rather than remanding that issue to the Appellate Court.
- Under the totality of the circumstances, the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant for the marijuana offenses.
Key quotations
“We hold that a trial court has abused its discretion in denying permission to appeal under § 54-96 if the state demonstrates that: (1) “the issues are debatable among jurists of reason”; (2) “a court could resolve the issues [in a different manner]”; or (3) the questions are “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”” (402)
“The probable cause test then is an objective one. . . . The quantum of evidence necessary to establish probable cause exceeds mere suspicion, but is substantially less than that required for conviction.” (415-16)
“On the quantum of the facts at hand, there were sufficient facts to persuade a reasonably prudent and impartial mind that the defendant was involved in the criminal activity that occurred.” (420)
Factual background
Police conducted a controlled delivery of a package containing marijuana to the defendant's workplace after Federal Express drug-sniffing dogs detected marijuana in two packages addressed to the company. A detective observed the usual receiving clerk open the package, identify it as belonging to “Joe,” page Joe, and later identify the defendant as the package's recipient; the defendant also asked about a second package. Police arrested the defendant and recovered a Federal Express shipping receipt in a search incident to the arrest, and the defendant later made a voluntary statement. The trial court concluded that the police lacked probable cause, suppressed the evidence, and dismissed the charges.
Procedural history
The trial court suppressed the defendant's postarrest statement and a Federal Express shipping receipt, concluding that the police lacked probable cause for the arrest, and then dismissed the charges. The trial court denied the state's request for permission to appeal under § 54-96. The Appellate Court upheld the denial of permission and dismissed the state's appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted certification, reversed, exercised its supervisory authority to reach the probable-cause issue, and directed reversal of the trial court's dismissal and denial of the suppression motion.
Remand instructions
Reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court must reverse the trial court's judgment of dismissal and remand the case to the trial court with direction to deny the defendant's motion to suppress and conduct further proceedings according to law.