Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the defendant retained a subjective and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his apartment when police conducted a warrantless search five days after the month-to-month lease term expired. The defendant’s incarceration, failure to pay the next month’s rent, and failure to arrange for the care of his belongings did not, without more, establish abandonment of his privacy interest. The court reversed the murder conviction and remanded the case for a new trial because the trial court improperly denied the motion to suppress.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant had a subjective expectation of privacy in the apartment when police conducted the warrantless search five days after the rent became due and while he was incarcerated.
- Whether that expectation of privacy was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, including the month-to-month lease, nonpayment of rent, incarceration, absence of eviction proceedings, and Connecticut's landlord-tenant statutes.
- Whether the landlord's consent justified the warrantless search after the defendant retained a constitutionally protected privacy interest in the apartment.
Holdings
- The defendant had a subjective expectation of privacy in the apartment at the time of the search.
- The defendant's expectation of privacy in the apartment was objectively reasonable.
- The landlord's consent did not justify the warrantless search because the defendant retained a constitutionally protected privacy interest in the leased apartment.
Key quotations
“Failure to make arrangements for the security of his possessions a mere five days after his rent was due is not evidence that he intended to relinquish his expectation of privacy in his apartment.”
“The existence of these statutes demonstrate that society expects landlords to follow the mandatory legal processes in order to lawfully retake possession of a premises, which, in turn, indicates to us that a tenant’s expectation of privacy is valid, or at least reasonable, until the time that the landlord complies with the statutory procedure and regains the right of possession.”
“Therefore, the landlord’s consent in the present case was not a valid justification for the warrantless search of the defendant’s home.”
Factual background
The defendant entered into a month-to-month lease for an apartment, paid the first month's rent, moved in with his belongings, and lived there until his arrest five days later. While he remained incarcerated, he did not pay the next month's rent or make arrangements concerning the apartment, but the landlord did not evict him or notify him that he had to leave. Five days after the rent became due, police obtained the landlord's written consent and conducted a warrantless search, finding the murder victim's cell phone and drugs hidden in a bathroom wall.
Procedural history
The defendant was charged by substitute information with murder in the Superior Court for the judicial district of New London. The trial court, Jongbloed, J., denied his motion to suppress the victim's cell phone and drugs, and a jury subsequently found him guilty. The trial court rendered judgment and sentenced him to sixty years of incarceration. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded for a new trial after reversal of the judgment of conviction.