Summary
The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed whether police officers unlawfully seized Michael K. Clark and whether the seizure was supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion. The court held that, assuming a seizure occurred, a reliable confidential informant's tip, corroborated by officers' observations, justified the investigative stop. It reversed the Appellate Court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Appellate Court properly affirmed suppression of evidence as the fruit of an illegal seizure.
- Whether, assuming the police encounter constituted an investigative seizure, the officers had reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain Clark based on the confidential informant's tip and the officers' corroboration.
Holdings
- Even assuming that the officers' blocking and approach of Clark's vehicle constituted a seizure, the known confidential informant's established reliability, combined with the officers' corroboration of several significant details of the tip, supplied reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Clark's vehicle.
- Because the investigative stop was supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion, the Appellate Court improperly affirmed suppression and dismissal.
Key quotations
“We conclude, consistent with Illinois v. Gates, supra, at 233, 103 S. Ct. 2317, that when, as here, the police are familiar with the informant and his credibility has been established, and the police are able to corroborate several aspects of the tip by personal observation, the fact that the tip did not state the informant's basis of knowledge does not preclude the officers from having a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity.” (997 A.2d at 470)
“The police officers' corroboration of the defendant's presence in the Hill section of New Haven while driving a tan Chevrolet Cobalt with Pennsylvania license plates therefore was sufficient to provide a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity warranting the investigative stop.” (997 A.2d at 471)
Factual background
A known confidential informant who had previously supplied reliable information leading to search warrants and arrests told Detective Kasperzyk that Clark was selling drugs in New Haven's Hill section and was driving a tan Chevrolet Cobalt with Pennsylvania plates. Officers later located Clark driving a vehicle matching that description in the identified area and, after blocking the vehicle, approached while wearing clothing marked "Police" and displaying badges. An officer smelled marijuana and saw bags containing a green plant-like substance; a field test confirmed marijuana, and a subsequent search revealed $612 on Clark and approximately one pound of marijuana in the trunk.
Procedural history
The trial court granted Clark's motion to suppress evidence seized from his person and vehicle, concluding that the police had conducted a seizure unsupported by reasonable and articulable suspicion. Because the State represented that it could not proceed without the suppressed evidence, the trial court dismissed the charges. The Appellate Court affirmed in a two-to-one decision. The Supreme Court of Connecticut granted certification and reversed, directing further proceedings.
Remand instructions
Reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and remand to that court with direction to reverse the trial court's judgment, remand to the trial court with direction to deny Clark's motion to suppress, and conduct further proceedings according to law.