State v. Edmonds ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • ******************************************************
    The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the
    beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will
    be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the
    date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative
    date for the beginning of all time periods for filing
    postopinion motions and petitions for certification is
    the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.
    In no event will any such motions be accepted before
    the ‘‘officially released’’ date.
    All opinions are subject to modification and technical
    correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
    cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the
    event of discrepancies between the electronic version
    of an opinion and the print version appearing in the
    Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con-
    necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the
    latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
    The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
    the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official
    Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service
    and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes
    of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of
    the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro-
    duced and distributed without the express written per-
    mission of the Commission on Official Legal
    Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
    ******************************************************
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MICHAEL EDMONDS
    (SC 19389)
    Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa and
    Robinson, Js.
    Argued September 10, 2015—officially released September 13, 2016
    Bradford Buchta, assistant public defender, with
    whom, on the brief, was Nicole Donzello, senior assis-
    tant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
    Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state’s attorney, with
    whom, on the brief, were John C. Smriga, state’s attor-
    ney, and Marc R. Durso, assistant state’s attorney, for
    the appellee (state).
    Opinion
    McDONALD, J. The defendant, Michael Edmonds,
    appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court
    affirming his conviction, following a conditional plea
    of nolo contendere, of one count of possession of nar-
    cotics with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes
    § 21a-277 (a), and one count of failure to appear in the
    first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-172.
    See State v. Edmonds, 
    151 Conn. App. 763
    , 765, 
    96 A.3d 607
     (2014). On certification to this court, the defendant
    contends that the Appellate Court improperly con-
    cluded that: (1) the trial court, Rodriguez, J., in denying
    the defendant’s motion to suppress narcotics evidence,
    correctly determined that the defendant was not seized
    until police officers performed a patdown search for
    weapons; and (2) the record was inadequate to review
    the defendant’s claim that he was unreasonably seized,
    in violation of the federal and state constitutions, when
    two police cruisers simultaneously descended upon him
    from opposite directions in a small private parking lot
    behind a Subway restaurant and a uniformed officer
    verbally commanded him to stop.1 We agree with both
    of the defendant’s claims and conclude that the evi-
    dence the defendant sought to suppress was seized in
    violation of the fourth amendment to the United States
    constitution2 and article first, §§ 7 and 9, of the constitu-
    tion of Connecticut.3 We therefore reverse the judgment
    of the Appellate Court.
    Before setting forth the relevant facts and procedural
    history, we begin by observing that the standard of
    appellate review governing allegedly unconstitutional
    police searches and seizures differs from the standard
    that governs appellate review of other types of similarly
    fact intensive questions. It is well established that we
    must ‘‘undertake a more probing factual review’’ of
    allegedly improper seizures, so that we may come to
    ‘‘an independent legal determination of whether a rea-
    sonable person in the defendant’s position would have
    believed that he was not free to leave.’’ State v. Bur-
    roughs, 
    288 Conn. 836
    , 843, 844 n.5, 
    955 A.2d 43
     (2008).
    ‘‘A proper analysis of this question is necessarily fact
    intensive, requiring a careful examination of the entirety
    of the circumstances in order to determine whether the
    police engaged in a coercive display of authority . . . .’’
    
    Id., 846
    . Although we must, of course, defer to the trial
    court’s factual findings, ‘‘our usual deference . . . is
    qualified by the necessity for a scrupulous examination
    of the record to ascertain whether [each] finding is
    supported by substantial evidence . . . .’’ (Citation
    omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) 
    Id., 843
    .
    Furthermore, in reviewing the record, we are bound to
    consider not only the trial court’s factual findings, but
    also the full testimony of the arresting officers; in partic-
    ular, we must take account of any undisputed evidence
    that does not support the trial court’s ruling in favor
    of the state but that the trial court did not expressly
    discredit. See State v. DeMarco, 
    311 Conn. 510
    , 520 and
    n.4, 
    88 A.3d 491
     (2014); id., 543 (Palmer, J., dissenting).
    In the present case, the trial court’s oral decision,
    as supplemented by the undisputed testimony of the
    arresting officers, reveals the following relevant facts.4
    On the evening of Friday, January 28, 2011, Officers
    Elson Morales and Joseph Lawlor of the Bridgeport
    Police Department (department) were patrolling in the
    vicinity of Madison Avenue and Capitol Avenue. The
    officers had been assigned to patrol there because a
    large number of teenagers were expected to attend a
    basketball game at nearby Central High School and
    teenagers tended to congregate on Madison Avenue
    after such games, clogging traffic.
    The officers testified that this area of Bridgeport is
    plagued by a high rate of violent crime. Both officers
    conceded, however, that the department considers
    essentially the entire city of Bridgeport to be a high
    crime area. There was no testimony that the crime rate
    in the neighborhood of Madison Avenue and Capitol
    Avenue is any higher than in other areas of Bridgeport.
    At approximately 7 p.m., the two officers were driving
    northbound on Madison Avenue in a marked police
    cruiser when they stopped at a red light at the intersec-
    tion of Madison and Capitol Avenues. As they waited
    for the light to change, they briefly observed a man,
    later identified as the defendant, who is black, standing
    alone in the parking lot at 944 Madison Avenue, behind
    a Subway sandwich restaurant located on the corner.
    Although it is not evidenced in the record, it may reason-
    ably be assumed—and the state conceded at oral argu-
    ment before this court—that the Subway restaurant
    would have been open for dinner at that hour.
    The officers offered three reasons why the defendant
    aroused their suspicions at that time. First, Morales
    testified that, at the time the officers observed the
    defendant, ‘‘[i]t was pre-dark, it was starting to get
    dark.’’ He indicated that the defendant ‘‘was loitering
    in the rear in the shadows . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.)
    The trial court does not appear to have credited
    Morales’ testimony that, at 7 p.m. on January 28, 2011,
    in Bridgeport, it was just ‘‘starting to get dark.’’5 And
    for good reason. On that particular winter evening, the
    sun had set two hours earlier, at 5:04 p.m., and even
    the twilight had long since passed.6 Moreover, there
    was undisputed testimony that no lights illuminated the
    Subway parking lot at that time. Accordingly, the only
    reasonable inference is that anyone standing outside
    the Subway restaurant at dinnertime on that particular
    evening necessarily would have been standing in the
    ‘‘shadows.’’
    Second, both officers testified that the defendant
    aroused their suspicions because he was ‘‘loitering’’ in
    the Subway lot. In the police report they completed the
    evening of the incident, the officers wrote that ‘‘we
    observed a heavy set black male wearing a tan colored
    hooded sweatshirt loitering behind the Subway [s]and-
    wich [s]hop . . . .’’ In the section of the report entitled
    ‘‘Point of Illegal Entry/Means of Attack,’’ the officers
    entered: ‘‘Loitering near Subway.’’
    During the suppression hearing, however, both offi-
    cers acknowledged that, at the time they first observed
    the defendant and decided to question him, they had no
    reason to believe that he was in violation of Bridgeport’s
    loitering ordinance. Bridgeport Municipal Code
    § 9.04.010 provides: ‘‘Any person who, without permis-
    sion or legitimate purpose, loiters upon the property
    of another or upon city-owned property, and who upon
    command of any police officer or person in charge of
    city-owned property fails to quit such property, shall
    be punished as provided in Chapter 1.12 of this code.’’
    In this case, there were no signs indicating ‘‘no loitering’’
    posted at that location, and the officers had no informa-
    tion that the defendant was on Subway’s property with-
    out permission or legitimate purpose, nor that he had
    been commanded to leave by a police officer or city
    official. Indeed, the officers readily conceded that the
    defendant might have been a resident of one of the
    apartment units located above the Subway restaurant.
    In addition, the period during which the officers were
    stopped at the red light, and had an opportunity to
    observe the defendant and conclude that he might be
    loitering, lasted only a few seconds. During that brief
    period, and given the poor lighting conditions, the offi-
    cers were unable to determine even the defendant’s
    skin color. All they could see was a ‘‘silhouette and just
    a vague color of his jacket.’’
    Third, the officers testified that their suspicions were
    aroused because the Subway restaurant had been
    robbed multiple times in the past, including within the
    past year. There was undisputed testimony, however,
    that no incidents of any sort had been reported in the
    Bridgeport police logs for that Subway location during
    the preceding four months. Nor did the officers receive
    any calls with respect to that location on the date in
    question.
    In any event, after having observed nothing more
    than a nondescript individual standing outside a Sub-
    way restaurant for a few seconds at 7 p.m. on a Friday
    evening, the officers decided to interrupt their patrol
    of the high school traffic situation to question him. They
    testified that they intended to ask him why he was in
    the parking lot, and whether he lived in one of the
    apartment units above the Subway restaurant.
    There was no testimony suggesting that either
    Morales or Lawlor had any reason to believe that the
    defendant was armed or dangerous, nor that any sort
    of criminal activity was underway or recently had tran-
    spired at that location. Nevertheless, before stopping
    to talk to the defendant, they decided to radio their
    supervisor, Sergeant Ronald Mercado, for backup.
    Morales testified that ‘‘[w]e wanted to try to attempt
    to [identify] the party and we wanted [Mercado] to
    cover us.’’ Later in the hearing, Morales reiterated that
    the two officers contacted Mercado because ‘‘we
    wanted cover.’’
    The small parking lot in which the defendant was
    standing formed an L shape around the rear of the
    rectangular Subway building. There were only two
    entrances/exits to the lot. The small end of the L exited
    onto Capitol Avenue, and the large end onto Madison
    Avenue. Otherwise, the lot was enclosed by the Subway
    building on the street corner side, and by various com-
    mercial buildings on the opposite side. The lot was
    private property. The defendant, who was standing in
    the middle of the lot, was the only person in the lot at
    the time of the incident.
    After Mercado reached the location to provide the
    requested ‘‘cover’’ for Morales and Lawlor, the three
    officers in two patrol cars entered the Subway lot from
    opposing directions and converged on the defendant
    simultaneously in the middle of the lot, near a staircase
    leading to the apartments located above the Subway
    shop. Morales and Lawlor entered the lot from the Capi-
    tol Avenue entrance, while Mercado entered through
    the Madison Avenue entrance. Both vehicles were
    marked police cruisers. All three officers were in uni-
    form, and armed. The record does not reveal whether
    they activated the cruisers’ light bars or sirens as they
    approached the defendant.
    The precise sequence of events from the time the
    officers entered the Subway lot until they frisked the
    defendant is less clear. In their signed police report,
    the officers provided the following account: ‘‘We . . .
    drove into the rear parking lot of [the] Subway [s]and-
    wich [s]hop when the [defendant] turned away from us
    when he observed our patrol unit, Sergeant Mercado
    drove in from the Madison [Avenue] entrance and
    stopped the [defendant] . . . . [The defendant] imme-
    diately stated ‘I didn’t rob nobody!’ He kept moving his
    hands around in a nervous manner and yelling ‘this is
    embarrassing!’ while continuing to state his innocence.’’
    The officers’ testimony at the suppression hearing,
    together with the trial court’s subsequent factual find-
    ings, injected some ambiguity into three elements of the
    police report account of events: (1) whether Mercado
    entered the lot precisely at the same time as Morales
    and Lawlor; (2) the circumstances under which the
    defendant was stopped; and (3) the timing and nature
    of the defendant’s nervous hand movements.
    First, with respect to the timing of the two cruisers
    entering the lot and approaching the defendant,
    Morales’ testimony mirrored and expanded upon the
    account in the officers’ police report: ‘‘As we entered
    from Capitol [Avenue] into the rear parking lot of Sub-
    way we observed the [defendant] still in the shadow of
    the parking lot. He immediately—when he saw our car,
    it’s a marked unit, he immediately turned around and
    started walking away. That’s—at the time when we
    went to go around the L shape of—toward Madison
    [Avenue] Sergeant Mercado entered in his marked unit
    and was able to stop the [defendant].’’ Morales later
    summarized this sequence of events by stating that the
    two cruisers ‘‘pulled in’’ at ‘‘about the same time’’ and
    arrived at the defendant’s location in the middle of the
    lot at approximately the same time.
    Lawlor’s testimony was consistent with that of
    Morales on this point. He testified that when he and
    Morales entered the lot from Capitol Avenue, the defen-
    dant immediately turned and started to walk away, and
    that Mercado entered the lot from Madison Avenue
    ‘‘shortly thereafter.’’
    The trial court found, however, that ‘‘[t]he two offi-
    cers and . . . Mercado entered the parking lot at the
    same time and through the only two entrances into the
    eatery’s parking lot. . . . As soon as the two officers
    arrived . . . the defendant started to immediately walk
    away from the officers . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.)
    Because the police report, Morales, and Lawlor all indi-
    cated that Morales and Lawlor entered the lot from
    Capitol Avenue shortly before Mercado entered from
    Madison Avenue, and the record contains no evidence
    to the contrary, we must understand the court’s finding
    that the two cruisers entered at the same time to mean
    that the two cruisers arrived at the lot at approximately
    the same time, and that, as the defendant began to walk
    away from the first cruiser, Mercado entered and the
    two simultaneously converged on his position in the
    middle of the lot.
    Second, with respect to when the defendant was
    stopped, Morales’ testimony was again consistent with
    the police report. In response to direct questioning by
    the trial court to clarify the sequence of events, Morales
    indicated that Mercado made the first contact with the
    defendant as he attempted to walk away from the
    cruiser driven by Morales and Lawlor, and that Mercado
    stopped the defendant ‘‘[b]y verbally commanding him
    to stop.’’ Morales indicated that Mercado also ‘‘might
    have been’’ the one who began to question the defendant
    after he was stopped, although Morales was unsure.
    Lawlor testified that it was Morales who ‘‘made con-
    tact with [the defendant] first,’’ spoke to the defendant,
    and ‘‘handl[ed] more of the contact,’’ while Lawlor him-
    self observed the interaction. During that portion of the
    suppression hearing, however, Lawlor was not asked—
    and did not testify—about Mercado’s role in the stop-
    ping and questioning of the defendant. Lawlor also did
    not testify as to how the defendant came to be stopped
    when he began to walk away from the first cruiser, and
    the trial court made no findings in this regard.
    Third, the record contains three accounts of the
    defendant’s nervous hand movements. The police
    report states that, after Mercado stopped the defendant
    and he denied having robbed anyone, ‘‘[the defendant]
    kept moving his hands around in a nervous manner and
    yelling ‘this is embarrassing!’ while continuing to state
    his innocence.’’ Morales offered a far more detailed
    account at the suppression hearing. He testified that,
    after the officers exited their cars and the defendant
    denied having robbed anyone, and as the three officers
    approached him on foot, the defendant moved his hands
    in a nervous manner while he stood facing the officers,
    and repeatedly stated that he felt embarrassed.7 These
    hand movements entailed ‘‘going on the side, behind
    him fixing his pants,’’ and were accompanied by com-
    plaints about a bad back. Morales variously described
    these movements as ‘‘tussling with his pants’’; ‘‘tussling
    with his belt buckle . . . the belt area of his pants’’;
    and ‘‘fidgeting with his hands . . . moving his belt, his
    upper part of the pants . . . .’’ Morales testified that
    when the officers then ordered the defendant to keep
    his hands where the officers could see them, the defen-
    dant refused to comply with those orders, which led
    the officers to pat him down for their safety. Lawlor,
    by contrast, testified without elaboration that the defen-
    dant moved his hands toward his waistband at the out-
    set, as he turned to walk away from the approaching
    patrol car.
    The trial court found on this question that, ‘‘as the
    defendant started to immediately walk away from the
    officers, he was observed by . . . Morales and . . .
    Lawlor to engage in movements around his waistband
    as he walked. While the police exited their vehicles and
    approached the defendant, he spontaneously yelled out
    ‘I didn’t rob anyone’ and he kept saying that he was
    embarrassed.’’ Although there was no evidence in the
    record to support the court’s finding that Morales wit-
    nessed suspicious hand motions at the outset, while
    the officers were still in their vehicle pulling into the
    lot, the court was free to credit Lawlor’s testimony that
    he witnessed such motions at that time. The court made
    no findings with respect to Morales’ testimony that the
    defendant later defied the officers’ commands to keep
    his hands in plain view, after the officers had
    stopped him.
    In any event, it is clear that, soon after they entered
    the lot, exited their cruisers, and approached the defen-
    dant, the officers decided to pat the defendant down
    for their safety. Although they testified that they were
    concerned that he might have been carrying a weapon,
    the only fact they were able to articulate in support of
    that concern was that the defendant moved his hands
    near his waistband as he turned away from them. In fact,
    the officers did not find any weapons on the defendant
    when they frisked him. They did discover a bundle
    containing heroin, however, and arrested him.
    The defendant moved to suppress the narcotics evi-
    dence, contending that its discovery was the fruit of an
    illegal search and seizure, in violation of the state and
    federal constitutions. The trial court denied the defen-
    dant’s motion and the defendant subsequently entered
    a plea of nolo contendere to the counts of possession
    of narcotics with intent to sell and failure to appear in
    the first degree, conditional on his right to appeal the
    denial of his motion to suppress pursuant to General
    Statutes § 54-94a. Consistent with the plea agreement,
    the court, Arnold, J., imposed a total effective sentence
    of ten years imprisonment, execution suspended after
    four years, and three years probation.
    The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court,
    arguing that he was seized when the police converged
    on him in the Subway parking lot or, at the very latest,
    when Mercado commanded him stop. State v.
    Edmonds, supra, 
    151 Conn. App. 766
    . The defendant
    further argued that at neither of those times did the
    police possess a reasonable and articulable suspicion
    that he was involved in criminal activity, as required
    to justify a nonarrest seizure under Terry v. Ohio, 
    392 U.S. 1
    , 21–22, 
    88 S. Ct. 1868
    , 
    20 L. Ed. 2d 889
     (1968).
    State v. Edmonds, supra, 766. The Appellate Court
    rejected the defendant’s claim that he was seized at
    the outset, when the officers converged on him in the
    Subway lot. Id., 772–73. The court also concluded that
    (1) the defendant had not preserved his claim that Mer-
    cado’s verbal command to stop constituted a seizure,
    and (2) the record was inadequate to review that claim
    under the test for the review of unpreserved constitu-
    tional claims that we established in State v. Golding,
    
    213 Conn. 233
    , 239–40, 
    567 A.2d 823
     (1989).8 State v.
    Edmonds, supra, 769–71. Accordingly, the Appellate
    Court upheld the trial court’s implicit finding that the
    defendant was not seized until Morales performed the
    patdown search. Id., 773. Finally, the Appellate Court
    concluded that, at that time, the police had a reasonable
    and articulable suspicion sufficient to detain and frisk
    the defendant. Id., 775. Accordingly, the court affirmed
    the judgment of the trial court. Id., 776. We granted the
    defendant’s petition for certification and this appeal
    followed. See footnote 1 of this opinion. Additional facts
    and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.
    In part I of this opinion, we consider whether the
    Appellate Court properly concluded that the defendant
    was not seized until the officers patted him down for
    weapons and that certain of his claims in that regard
    are unreviewable. In part II, we consider whether, at
    the time of the defendant’s seizure, the police officers
    possessed a reasonable and articulable suspicion of
    criminal activity, whether the purpose of the seizure
    was reasonable, and whether the scope and character
    of the seizure was reasonable in light of its purpose.
    I
    ‘‘[W]hen considering the validity of a . . . [Terry]
    stop, our threshold inquiry is twofold. . . . First, we
    must determine at what point, if any, did the encounter
    between [the police officers] and the defendant consti-
    tute an investigatory stop or seizure. . . . Next, [i]f we
    conclude that there was such a seizure, we must then
    determine whether [the police officers] possessed a
    reasonable and articulable suspicion at the time the
    seizure occurred.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
    State v. Brown, 
    279 Conn. 493
    , 516, 
    903 A.2d 169
     (2006).
    With respect to the former inquiry, the defendant argues
    that he was seized at the moment the two marked police
    cruisers converged on him from opposite directions in
    the small Subway parking lot, and no later than the
    time at which Mercado commanded him to stop. The
    state, by contrast, contends that the Appellate Court
    properly affirmed the implicit conclusion of the trial
    court that the defendant was not seized until the officers
    patted him down for weapons. We agree that the defen-
    dant was seized no later than when Mercado com-
    manded him to stop.9
    A
    We begin by setting forth the legal test used to deter-
    mine when a person is seized for purposes of the federal
    and state constitutions.10 ‘‘[A] person is seized when,
    by means of physical force or a show of authority,
    his freedom of movement is restrained. . . . The key
    consideration is whether, in view of all the circum-
    stances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person
    would have believed that he was not free to leave.
    . . . The inquiry is objective, focusing on a reasonable
    person’s probable reaction to the [officers’] conduct.’’
    (Citations omitted; footnotes omitted; internal quota-
    tion marks omitted.) State v. Burroughs, 
    supra,
     
    288 Conn. 844
    –46; accord United States v. Mendenhall, 
    446 U.S. 544
    , 554, 
    100 S. Ct. 1870
    , 
    64 L. Ed. 2d 497
     (1980).
    In situations in which the police have not applied any
    physical force, we must conduct ‘‘a careful [fact inten-
    sive] examination of the entirety of the circumstances
    in order to determine whether the police engaged in a
    coercive display of authority . . . .’’ State v. Bur-
    roughs, 
    supra, 846
    .
    Factors to be considered in determining whether
    police conduct projects coercion include, but are not
    limited to: the number of officers and vehicles involved;
    whether the officers are uniformed; whether the offi-
    cers are visibly armed or have their weapons drawn;
    whether the vehicles involved are marked police cruis-
    ers, whether the vehicles’ sirens and emergency lights
    are activated, and whether the vehicles’ headlamps or
    spotlights illuminate the defendant; whether the defen-
    dant is alone or otherwise appears to be the target of
    police attention; the nature of the location, including
    whether it is public or private property; whether the
    defendant is surrounded or fully or partially blocked
    in by the police; the character of any verbal communica-
    tions or commands issued by the police officers;
    whether the officers advise the detainee of his right to
    terminate the encounter; the nature of any physical
    contact; whether the officers pursue after an initial
    attempt by the defendant to leave; whether the officers
    take and retain possession of the defendant’s papers
    or property; and any other circumstance or conduct
    that bespeaks aggressiveness or a show of force on the
    part of the police, or suggests that the defendant is
    under suspicion or otherwise not free to leave. See
    United States v. Griffith, 
    533 F.3d 979
    , 983 (8th Cir.
    2008); State v. Burroughs, 
    supra,
     
    288 Conn. 846
    –47;
    State v. Thomas, 
    291 Kan. 676
    , 683, 
    246 P.3d 678
     (2011);
    4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure (5th Ed. 2012) §§ 9.2
    (a) and 9.4 (a). Although it is true that ‘‘not all personal
    intercourse between [the police] and citizens involves
    seizures of persons’’; (internal quotation marks omit-
    ted) Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Delgado,
    
    466 U.S. 210
    , 215, 
    104 S. Ct. 1758
    , 
    80 L. Ed. 2d 247
    (1984); and that law enforcement officers must be free
    to engage in ‘‘healthy, mutually beneficial intercourse
    with the public’’; State v. Burroughs, 
    supra, 853
    ; it is
    equally true that use of coercion beyond that inherent
    in any police-citizen encounter transforms these sorts
    of informal, voluntary interactions into seizures. 4 W.
    LaFave, supra, § 9.4 (a), p. 601.
    B
    In support of its conclusion that the defendant was
    not seized until the officers frisked him for weapons,
    the Appellate Court offered the following analysis: ‘‘The
    facts found by [the trial court] and our independent
    review of the record demonstrate nothing more than a
    benign police presence in the Subway parking lot. The
    court’s oral decision portrays an unremarkable scene
    of three uniformed officers approaching the defendant
    as part of a routine investigation to obtain identification
    and determine his purpose for being in the lot. In addi-
    tion to the facts set forth in the court’s oral decision,
    the record does not contain any evidence suggestive of
    threatening or coercive police conduct. For instance,
    there is no evidence that the police engaged their lights
    or sirens when they entered the Subway parking lot,
    that they brandished their weapons, or that they
    impeded the defendant’s ability to move, either physi-
    cally or verbally. . . . We conclude, therefore, that the
    defendant was not seized when the police approached
    him because a reasonable person in the defendant’s
    position would not have believed that it was impermissi-
    ble to leave the scene.’’ (Citations omitted.) State v.
    Edmonds, supra, 
    151 Conn. App. 772
    –73.
    Our own independent review of the record reveals
    anything but an unremarkable instance of benign com-
    munity-police dialogue. On the contrary, we do not
    believe that any reasonable person, finding himself or
    herself in the position of the defendant, would have felt
    free to simply disregard the approaching officers and
    leave the scene. Numerous circumstances of the pres-
    ent case support this conclusion.
    From the perspective of the defendant, the incident
    began when two police cruisers suddenly converged
    on him from opposite directions, effectively blocking
    off his only means of egress from the small Subway
    parking lot. It is well established that, when law enforce-
    ment officials block a suspect’s vehicle so as to prevent
    him from driving off, they have, by that fact alone,
    executed a fourth amendment seizure. See, e.g., Pane
    v. Gramaglia, 
    509 Fed. Appx. 101
    , 103 (2d Cir. 2013)
    (citing authorities); State v. Clark, 
    297 Conn. 1
    , 8, 
    997 A.2d 461
     (2010); State v. Januszewski, 
    182 Conn. 142
    ,
    147, 
    438 A.2d 679
     (1980), cert. denied, 
    453 U.S. 922
    , 
    101 S. Ct. 3159
    , 
    69 L. Ed. 2d 1005
     (1981), overruled in part
    on other grounds by State v. Hart, 
    221 Conn. 595
    , 609,
    
    605 A.2d 1366
     (1992); 4 W. LaFave, supra, § 9.4 (a), pp.
    596–97 n.122. Both this court and our sister courts have
    applied the same reasoning with respect to pedestrians,
    concluding that a seizure occurs when the police
    maneuver or park their vehicles, or approach a pedes-
    trian on foot, in such a way as to block the pedestrian’s
    path or effectively close off any avenue of escape. See,
    e.g., United States v. Berry, 
    670 F.2d 583
    , 597 (5th Cir.
    1982) (‘‘blocking an individual’s path or otherwise inter-
    cepting him to prevent his progress in any way is a
    consideration of great, and probably decisive, signifi-
    cance’’); State v. Januszewski, 
    supra, 147
     (pedestrian
    constructively seized where police blocked his vehicle
    from leaving parking lot); State v. Allen, Docket No.
    02CA0059, 
    2003 WL 21276146
    , *3 (Ohio App. June 4,
    2003) (defendant held seized where officers effectively
    blocked only exit from hallway), review denied, 
    100 Ohio St. 3d 1424
    , 
    797 N.E.2d 92
     (2003); State v. Ingram,
    
    82 Ohio App. 3d 341
    , 345, 
    612 N.E.2d 454
     (1992) (seizure
    when two officers blocked defendant’s exits from
    where he sat on porch railing).
    We recognize that, in the present case, the officers
    did not fully block in the defendant, who presumably
    could have walked past one of the two police cruisers
    onto Capitol Avenue or Madison Avenue. Even under
    such circumstances, however, when officers have only
    partially blocked the available exits, courts have not
    hesitated to find a seizure when a reasonable person
    would conclude that the police have positioned their
    bodies or vehicles so as to effectively surround the
    suspect or thwart his egress. See, e.g., United States v.
    Smith, 
    794 F.3d 681
    , 685 (7th Cir. 2015) (pedestrian in
    alleyway held seized when two officers ‘‘positioned
    their bicycles at a [forty-five degree] angle to him,
    obstructing his intended path forward’’); State v. Bur-
    roughs, 
    supra,
     
    288 Conn. 847
     (important factors include
    whether individual’s movement was restrained or he
    was otherwise isolated in some manner, such as when
    cruiser parks in close proximity); J.N. v. State, 
    778 So. 2d 440
    , 441–42 (Fla. 2001) (pedestrian suspected of
    loitering held seized when exiting alley and approached
    on either side by three uniformed officers in marked
    patrol cars); State v. Epperson, 
    237 Kan. 707
    , 714, 
    703 P.2d 761
     (1985) (suspects held seized when officer ‘‘cut
    off their avenue of escape’’ by parking cruiser so that his
    open car door blocked lane of travel in which suspects’
    vehicle was parked [internal quotation marks omitted]);
    Swift v. State, 
    393 Md. 139
    , 149, 156, 
    899 A.2d 867
     (2006)
    (defendant walking on public road held seized when
    police officer pulled marked cruiser directly in front of
    him, ‘‘blocking his path’’).
    Although there is no Connecticut authority directly
    on point, given the unique factual circumstances of the
    present case, State v. Rustad, Docket No. 58691-2-I,
    
    2008 WL 555945
     (Wn. App. March 3, 2008), a decision
    of the Washington Court of Appeals, is instructive. In
    that case, two officers, driving separate marked patrol
    cars, were responding to a ‘‘911 hang-up call’’ from a
    ‘‘ ‘known drug house’ ’’ at approximately 10:30 p.m.
    when they noticed a suspicious vehicle begin to turn
    into that home’s driveway. Id., *1. When the officers
    shined their flashlights at the vehicle, it instead contin-
    ued down the street. Id. The officers then spotted that
    same vehicle in the rear of a nearby parking lot. Id. The
    officers entered the lot and parked thirty to forty feet
    away from the vehicle, near the only road providing
    entry to or exit from the area, and partially blocking
    that exit. Id. Their spotlights were aimed at the vehicle,
    but they did not activate their emergency lights or
    sirens. Id. One officer then approached the passenger
    side of the defendant’s vehicle, while his partner ‘‘stood
    guard at the rear of the vehicle.’’ Id. Both officers were
    uniformed and armed, although their weapons
    remained holstered. Id., *2. Under those circumstances,
    the court concluded that the officers’ actions consti-
    tuted a seizure. Id. Specifically, the court concluded
    that, although the defendant was not physically
    detained, ‘‘a reasonable person would not feel free to
    leave or otherwise terminate the encounter’’ because
    the officers ‘‘largely, though not fully, blocked any exit
    the [defendant’s vehicle] may have had from the parking
    area and back onto the road . . . .’’ Id.
    Indeed, the theory that the police seize an individual
    when they knowingly surround him or obstruct his free
    passage is firmly rooted in our state constitution and
    federal common law. In State v. Oquendo, 
    223 Conn. 635
    , 650–51, 
    613 A.2d 1300
     (1992), in construing article
    first, §§ 7 and 9, of the constitution of Connecticut, we
    emphasized that, at common law, ‘‘no man [could] be
    restrained of his liberty; be prevented from removing
    himself from place to place, as he [chooses]; be com-
    pelled to go to a place contrary to his inclination, or
    be in any way imprisoned, or confined, unless by
    virtue of the express laws of the land. 1 Z. Swift, [A
    System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut (1795)]
    p. 180. . . . Moreover, every detention or confinement
    of the person in any shape, including the forcible deten-
    tion of a person in the street, constituted an imprison-
    ment." (Citation omitted; emphasis altered; internal
    quotation marks omitted.) A review of the case law
    construing certain maritime provisions of a 1790 act,
    which prohibited the ‘‘confine[ment of] the master of
    any ship or other vessel’’; An Act for the Punishment
    of Certain Crimes against the United States, c. 9, § 12,
    
    1 Stat. 115
     (1790); makes clear that, at both the time
    that Chief Justice Swift wrote his two volume treatise,
    A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut, in
    1795 and 1796, and when the relevant provisions of the
    state constitution were adopted in the early nineteenth
    century, an individual was deemed to be illegally ‘‘con-
    fined’’ not only when he was physically restrained or
    imprisoned, but also under circumstances in which he
    was surrounded and thereby intimidated into believing
    that he could not freely move. See, e.g., United States
    v. Huff, 
    13 F. 630
    , 641 (C.C.W.D. Tenn. 1882), and
    authorities cited therein; United States v. Hemmer, 
    26 F. Cas. 259
    , 260 (C.C.D. Mass. 1825) (No. 15,345).
    To the extent that the state relies on State v. Benton,
    
    304 Conn. 838
    , 
    43 A.3d 619
     (2012), and State v. Bur-
    roughs, 
    supra,
     
    288 Conn. 836
    , for the proposition that
    blocking in or surrounding a defendant does not support
    a finding of seizure, that reliance is misplaced. In Ben-
    ton, three young males suspected of possible involve-
    ment in gang related violence were riding their bicycles
    on a public street in New Haven. State v. Benton, 
    supra, 841
    . Two officers on foot patrol stepped into the road
    approximately twenty to twenty-five feet ahead of the
    three cyclists. 
    Id.
     At that point, the defendant’s two
    companions reversed direction and rode off. 
    Id.
     The
    defendant also veered away and attempted to pedal
    off, but the officers physically apprehended him. 
    Id.
     In
    concluding that the officers had not seized the defen-
    dant at the moment they initially stepped into the road,
    we relied on the facts that (1) the officers entered the
    road twenty to twenty-five feet away from the defen-
    dant, (2) they occupied less than one quarter of the two
    lane road, and (3) they stepped into the road in such
    a way as to indicate that they might merely have
    intended to advertise a police presence, or to observe
    the cyclists, rather than to stop them. 
    Id.,
     845–47. In
    addition, the fact that both of the defendant’s compan-
    ions decided to ride off in another direction, and did
    so, indicated that they were not in fact blocked in by
    the officers’ conduct. See 
    id., 841
    . Accordingly, Benton
    is readily distinguishable from the present case, in
    which the arrival of a second police presence, from the
    opposite direction, closing off the only available means
    of egress from the lot, thwarted the defendant’s initial
    attempt to walk away from Morales and Lawlor as they
    approached him.
    Burroughs provides even weaker authority for the
    state’s position, because in that case the police did
    nothing whatsoever to discourage or hinder the defen-
    dant from leaving the scene. In Burroughs, a single
    police cruiser pulled up behind a vehicle that was
    parked at night in an industrial area, without activating
    the cruiser’s emergency lights or sirens. State v. Bur-
    roughs, 
    supra,
     
    288 Conn. 840
    , 852. Two officers exited
    the cruiser and walked up to the driver’s and passen-
    ger’s sides of the parked vehicle to determine whether
    the occupants needed assistance. 
    Id.
     Under those cir-
    cumstances, we concluded that there was no significant
    show of police authority sufficient to indicate that the
    defendant and his passenger were not free to leave. 
    Id.,
    851–52. Importantly, nothing barred the defendant in
    Burroughs from simply driving off in the direction his
    vehicle was facing. By contrast, if a second police
    cruiser had entered the scene and pulled in front of
    the defendant’s vehicle, boxing him in, he would not
    have been free to leave. That is precisely what hap-
    pened here.
    Beyond the fact that two marked police cruisers con-
    verged on the defendant from opposite directions, effec-
    tively blocking him from exiting the lot, several other
    aspects of the present case would indicate to a reason-
    able person in the defendant’s position that he was not
    free to leave. First, the defendant was the only person
    in the parking lot at the time the police entered. Whereas
    an individual standing in a crowded area or traveling
    a public road has no reason to assume that a sudden
    police presence is directed toward him, in the present
    case it would have been apparent to the defendant
    that the two cruisers and three officers who suddenly
    approached were there for him. See State v. Oquendo,
    supra, 
    223 Conn. 653
    . Second, and relatedly, it is
    important that the Subway lot was private property,
    where police would not be expected to routinely patrol.
    See Parker v. Commonwealth, 
    255 Va. 96
    , 102, 
    496 S.E.2d 47
     (1998).
    A third, critical consideration is the fact that, as the
    defendant turned to walk away from the marked police
    cruiser driven by Morales and Lawlor, he was con-
    fronted by a second cruiser, driven by Mercado, which
    had entered from the opposite direction, appearing to
    thwart his passage. There is a common trope in espio-
    nage and other action genre films in which the protago-
    nist turns to retreat upon confronting an enemy, only
    to see more would-be captors appear from the other
    direction. At that point, he, along with the audience,
    realizes that he is trapped. Both courts and commenta-
    tors have applied this basic intuition in the search and
    seizure context, recognizing that cornering or ‘‘pursuing
    a person who has attempted to terminate the contact
    by departing’’ sends a clear signal that the person is
    not free to leave. 4 W. LaFave, supra, § 9.4 (a), p. 586;
    see, e.g., United States v. Beauchamp, 
    659 F.3d 560
    ,
    566–67 (6th Cir. 2011); In re D.J., 
    532 A.2d 138
    , 141
    (D.C. App. 1987), abrogated for federal constitutional
    purposes by California v. Hodari D., 
    499 U.S. 621
    , 626,
    
    111 S. Ct. 1547
    , 
    113 L. Ed. 2d 690
     (1991); Commonwealth
    v. Depina, 
    456 Mass. 238
    , 242, 
    922 N.E.2d 778
     (2010);
    Commonwealth v. Lewis, 
    535 Pa. 501
    , 506, 509, 
    636 A.2d 619
     (1994); Parker v. Commonwealth, 
    supra,
     
    255 Va. 102
    .
    Other factors that would have indicated to a reason-
    able person in the defendant’s position that he was not
    free to leave were the fact that he was approached by
    multiple uniformed police officers; see State v. Benton,
    
    supra,
     
    304 Conn. 846
    ; driving multiple marked patrol
    cars; see State v. Burroughs, 
    supra,
     
    288 Conn. 847
    ; in
    a dark, unlit space. See United States v. Smith, supra,
    
    794 F.3d 685
    . Moreover, although there is no indication
    whether the cruisers’ sirens and emergency lights were
    activated, we must at least assume, because the incident
    occurred approximately two hours after sunset, that
    the officers had illuminated their headlamps, and, there-
    fore, that the defendant would have been illuminated in
    the glare of those headlamps as the cruisers approached
    him in the unlit lot. See Commonwealth v. Helme, 
    399 Mass. 298
    , 303, 
    503 N.E.2d 1287
     (1987); State v. Pierce,
    
    173 Vt. 151
    , 153, 
    787 A.2d 1284
     (2001). These factors,
    therefore, further support the conclusion that a reason-
    able person, standing alone in a dark and private park-
    ing lot, who suddenly found himself blocked in by
    marked police cruisers, would not have felt free to
    leave.
    Lastly, if we had any remaining doubt as to whether
    a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would
    have felt free to disregard the three officers and leave
    the scene as they approached, those doubts are dis-
    pelled by the fact that Mercado, upon entering the Sub-
    way lot, commanded the defendant to stop. As a result
    of this command, the defendant, who initially sought
    to turn away from the first cruiser driven by Lawlor
    and Morales, stopped and submitted to police authority.
    It is well settled that a reasonable citizen would not
    feel free to disregard a verbal command to stop issued
    by an armed, uniformed police officer. See State v.
    Benton, 
    supra,
     
    304 Conn. 844
     n.4 (state conceded that
    police officer’s command to stop constitutes seizure
    for purposes of state constitution); State v. Oquendo,
    supra, 
    223 Conn. 647
    –48 n.8 (similar); State v. William-
    son, 
    10 Conn. App. 532
    , 540, 
    524 A.2d 655
     (order to halt,
    standing alone, constituted seizure), cert. denied, 
    204 Conn. 801
    , 
    525 A.2d 965
     (1987); see also United States
    v. Stover, 
    808 F.3d 991
    , 995 (4th Cir. 2015) (command
    to halt is example of police conduct that conveys to
    reasonable person that he is not free to leave); In re
    Martin H., Docket No. B151148, 
    2002 WL 1732650
    , *3
    (Cal. App. July 25, 2002) (‘‘when an officer commands
    a citizen to stop, this constitutes a detention because
    the citizen is no longer free to leave’’ [internal quotation
    marks omitted]); Blake v. State, 
    939 So. 2d 192
    , 195
    (Fla. App. 2006) (‘‘[i]f . . . the officer phrases his or
    her inquiries as commands, this action would indicate
    that the individual was not free to leave’’); M. Raymond,
    ‘‘The Right to Refuse and the Obligation to Comply:
    Challenging the Gamesmanship Model of Criminal Pro-
    cedure,’’ 
    54 Buff. L. Rev. 1483
    , 1493 (2007) (‘‘[P]olice
    commands or orders create seizures. The quintessential
    command is the order to stop . . . .’’ [Footnotes omit-
    ted.]). Accordingly, having considered all of the relevant
    circumstances and all of the undisputed evidence in the
    record, we are compelled to conclude that a reasonable
    person in the defendant’s position would not have felt
    free to leave the scene, and that the defendant was
    seized no later than when Mercado successfully com-
    manded him to stop.
    C
    We next consider the state’s assertion, which the
    Appellate Court found persuasive, that the defendant’s
    claim that he was seized no later than when Mercado
    commanded him to stop is unreviewable on appeal. The
    state contends that we must determine either that the
    defendant was seized at the outset, when the officers
    converged on him in the middle of the parking lot, or
    later, when they patted him down for weapons. We
    disagree, and conclude that the defendant’s full argu-
    ment is preserved for appellate review and that we
    are not barred from considering any of the undisputed
    testimony in the record.
    The following additional procedural history is rele-
    vant to our evaluation of the state’s argument. The
    defendant filed with the trial court what fairly may
    be characterized as a boilerplate motion to suppress
    evidence. The motion alleged only that: (1) ‘‘certain
    items seized by law enforcement officer(s) or his
    agent(s) . . . were not seized pursuant to a search and
    seizure warrant’’; and (2) ‘‘[t]he search and seizure vio-
    lated the laws and constitutions of the United States
    and of the [s]tate of Connecticut in that . . . [t]he
    search and seizure was unreasonable.’’ No memoran-
    dum of law setting forth specific legal theories or argu-
    ments accompanied the motion, and the state neither
    filed an objection to the motion nor sought any clarifica-
    tion or specification as to the grounds or theories on
    which the defendant objected to the search and seizure.
    In fact, neither party presented its theory of the seizure
    issue prior to the opening of testimony at the suppres-
    sion hearing.
    At the suppression hearing, the state proceeded first
    with its case, consistent with its burden of proving
    that the officers’ warrantless search and seizure of the
    defendant was constitutional. See State v. Eady, 
    249 Conn. 431
    , 436, 
    733 A.2d 112
    , cert. denied, 
    528 U.S. 1030
    ,
    
    120 S. Ct. 551
    , 
    145 L. Ed. 2d 428
     (1999). The state called
    and examined two witnesses—Officers Morales and
    Lawlor—whom defense counsel cross-examined
    broadly about the circumstances surrounding the defen-
    dant’s arrest. The prosecutor indicated that he had
    intended to call Sergeant Mercado as well, but that
    Mercado was on vacation in Florida and, therefore,
    unavailable to testify.
    When the prosecutor completed his redirect ques-
    tioning of Morales, the trial court intervened to ask the
    officer a series of questions to clarify the timeline of
    events. The court specifically asked Morales one-half
    dozen questions about the circumstances under which
    Mercado had stopped the defendant from walking away,
    and twice asked Morales to confirm that Mercado did
    so by verbally commanding the defendant to stop. After
    questioning Morales in this area, the court gave the
    prosecutor an opportunity to ask Morales follow-up
    questions.
    After the state rested, the defendant briefly called one
    witness to establish a lack of recent criminal activity at
    the Subway in question. The court then invited the state
    to present its closing argument, and the prosecutor for
    the first time offered the state’s theory of the search
    and seizure. It was only then, at the very end of the
    hearing, after the witnesses had been excused, both
    sides had rested, and the state had presented its argu-
    ment, that the court invited defense counsel to argue
    her theory of the case.
    Defense counsel began by advising the court that
    the court’s primary duty was to determine when the
    defendant was seized, if at all. At varying times, she
    argued that the defendant was seized: (1) when the
    police cruisers surrounded him in the lot; (2) when the
    three officers exited their cruisers and approached the
    defendant; or (3) when the police patted him down. At
    other times, however, defense counsel framed the issue
    more broadly. Near the end of the hearing, for example,
    she argued that the ‘‘bottom line’’ was that the defendant
    ‘‘was seized the minute that those police officers turned
    around and did a U-turn, came into the parking lot and
    stopped [the defendant] . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.)
    Despite the fact that defense counsel correctly
    advised the trial court that the court was obliged to
    determine whether a seizure occurred between the time
    that the officers entered the lot and when they verbally
    stopped the defendant, the trial court made no express
    findings in that regard. Instead, the court appears to
    have assumed that the frisk was the event of constitu-
    tional significance, and to have concluded that a seizure
    was justified at that time.
    On appeal, the state argues that (1) the defendant
    failed to preserve his argument that a seizure occurred
    when Mercado commanded the defendant to stop, (2)
    the record is inadequate for us to review this allegedly
    unpreserved claim, and (3) the state relied to its detri-
    ment on the fact that the defendant opted not to raise
    this argument at the suppression hearing. All of the
    state’s arguments are without merit.
    First, we disagree with the conclusion of the Appel-
    late Court that the defendant’s claim that he was seized
    no later than when Mercado commanded him to stop
    is unpreserved and, therefore, can only be reviewed on
    appeal if it satisfies the Golding test. State v. Edmonds,
    supra, 
    151 Conn. App. 770
    . At the suppression hearing,
    defense counsel advised the trial court that it must
    determine precisely when the defendant was seized.
    Counsel, who did not bear the burden of proof on this
    issue and had just heard the officers’ account of the
    events in question for the first time, offered three spe-
    cific possibilities, ranging from the moment the officers
    entered the lot to the moment they approached the
    defendant on foot to the moment they frisked him. But
    defense counsel also argued that the constitutionally
    relevant time period was of longer duration: the
    ‘‘minute’’ during which the officers turned around,
    entered the lot, and ‘‘stopped’’ the defendant. Because
    the only explicit testimony as to how the defendant was
    stopped was Morales’ testimony that Mercado verbally
    commanded him to stop, we have no difficulty conclud-
    ing that that command is fairly encompassed by the
    seizure theory that defense counsel articulated at the
    suppression hearing.11 As the Appellate Court has recog-
    nized, ‘‘[c]losing arguments of counsel . . . are seldom
    carefully constructed in toto before the event; improvi-
    sation frequently results in syntax left imperfect and
    meaning less than crystal clear. . . . [S]ome leeway
    must be afforded to the advocates in offering arguments
    . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v.
    McCleese, 
    94 Conn. App. 510
    , 517–18, 
    892 A.2d 343
    , cert.
    denied, 
    278 Conn. 908
    , 
    899 A.2d 36
     (2006).
    Second, even if we agreed that the defendant’s argu-
    ment is unpreserved, we would disagree with the
    state—and the Appellate Court—that the record is inad-
    equate to review that argument. The state contends that
    the record is inadequate because: (1) the trial court
    made no express findings with respect to Mercado’s
    verbal command to stop; and (2) the testimony of
    Morales and Lawlor as to this point allegedly conflicts.
    The first contention is of little moment, as it is well
    established that, when reviewing the constitutionality
    of an alleged seizure, we must parse the entire record,
    and not only the trial court’s express findings. State v.
    Burroughs, 
    supra,
     
    288 Conn. 843
    –44. If there is uncon-
    tested testimony by the state’s own witness indicating
    that Mercado seized the defendant before the defendant
    made any incriminating statements, and if the trial court
    did not affirmatively decline to credit that testimony,
    then it is fairly considered in the context of a constitu-
    tional analysis. This is especially true in light of the
    fact that the trial court clearly failed to focus on the
    constitutional import of any of the events that tran-
    spired prior to the patdown, suggesting that we can
    read little into the court’s failure to make express find-
    ings with respect to those events.
    The primary question, therefore, is whether Morales’
    testimony on this point is uncontested. Morales clearly
    testified, on multiple occasions, that it was Mercado
    who ‘‘stopped’’ the defendant. The police incident
    report—which Morales authored, for which Lawlor pro-
    vided assistance, and which an unidentified supervisor
    reviewed and signed12—is in full agreement, stating that
    ‘‘when the [defendant] turned away from us when he
    observed our patrol unit . . . Mercado drove in from
    the Madison [Avenue] entrance and stopped [him]
    . . . .’’ The trial court itself questioned Morales at some
    length to clarify this testimony. In response, Morales
    specified that Mercado verbally commanded the defen-
    dant to stop.
    For his part, Lawlor testified only that Mercado
    arrived shortly after Morales and he entered the lot,
    and that he could not recall where Mercado had parked.
    He gave no indication of what role Mercado played in
    the incident, if any, nor whether Mercado spoke to
    the defendant or issued any commands. When asked
    whether all three officers approached the defendant,
    Lawlor replied: ‘‘I don’t recall at what specific time but
    we approached him.’’ Nothing in Lawlor’s testimony,
    then, directly contradicted Morales’ testimony that Mer-
    cado ordered the defendant to stop as, or before, the
    defendant made any incriminating statements.
    In fact, the state’s argument that Lawlor offered con-
    flicting testimony is based entirely on the following
    brief colloquy between the prosecutor and Lawlor:
    ‘‘Q. Okay. Now, when you exited the vehicle did you
    make contact with the individual that was hanging out
    in back of the Subway?
    ‘‘A. Well, contact was made.
    ‘‘Q. By who?
    ‘‘A. By—Officer Morales made contact with him first.
    ‘‘Q. Okay. And then who made contact with him
    second?
    ‘‘A. I was there, but Officer Morales was handling
    more of the contact first.
    ‘‘Q. So is it a fair assessment to say that Officer
    Morales spoke to the individual and you just kind of
    observed what was going on?
    ‘‘A. Yes.’’
    During this colloquy, no mention is made of Mercado
    and, in particular, there is no discussion of any role
    that Mercado might have played before Morales and
    Lawlor exited their vehicle. In fact, Lawlor’s entire testi-
    mony during this portion of the hearing is limited to
    the roles that he and Morales played in the events in
    question, and he is not asked about Mercado’s role until
    much later. In context, then, there simply is no reason
    to interpret Lawlor’s brief reference to the fact that,
    after he and Morales exited their vehicle, Morales made
    the first contact with the defendant, to mean that Lawlor
    disagreed with Morales’ testimony that Mercado initi-
    ated the stop. Indeed, the failure of either party to
    seek clarification of Lawlor’s testimony as to this point
    suggests that this testimony was not interpreted to con-
    flict with Mercado’s testimony or with the officers’ inci-
    dent report. The most reasonable reading of the
    testimony, therefore, is that Lawlor was merely indicat-
    ing that, of the two partners, it was Morales who inter-
    acted with the defendant. Accordingly, we are not
    precluded from considering Morales’ uncontradicted
    testimony with respect to the time of seizure.
    Third, we are not persuaded by the argument that
    the state relied to its detriment on a belief that Mer-
    cado’s verbal command to stop was not relevant to the
    case. As we already have explained, that issue clearly
    was raised at the suppression hearing. The trial court,
    sua sponte, questioned Morales about the command at
    some length, and afforded the prosecutor an opportu-
    nity to pursue the issue on redirect. Defense counsel
    later argued that the ‘‘bottom line’’ was that the defen-
    dant was seized during the minute in which the officers
    stopped the defendant. That the state opted to largely
    ignore the constitutional significance of the period dur-
    ing which the officers entered the lot and confronted
    the defendant, and instead focused almost exclusively
    on the reasonableness of the patdown search, was a
    strategic decision, and not the result of trial by
    ambuscade.
    Nor is there any indication that the state declined to
    call Mercado as a witness out of a belief that his role
    in the encounter was somehow irrelevant. Rather, the
    prosecutor indicated at the suppression hearing that he
    had intended to call Mercado as a witness but that
    Mercado was on vacation in Florida at the time. Accord-
    ingly, we reject the state’s argument that, in determining
    when the defendant was seized, we may not consider
    the undisputed testimony of the state’s own witness,
    as corroborated by the officers’ official incident report,
    that Mercado, upon entering the parking lot, restrained
    the defendant by issuing a verbal command to stop.
    II
    Having concluded that the defendant was seized no
    later than when Mercado commanded him to stop, we
    next consider whether the seizure was legal. It is well
    settled that a Terry stop is constitutionally permissible
    only if three conditions are met: ‘‘(1) the officer[s] must
    have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred,
    is occurring, or is about to occur; (2) the purpose of
    the stop must be reasonable; and (3) the scope and
    character of the detention must be reasonable when
    considered in light of its purpose.’’ State v. Cyrus, 
    297 Conn. 829
    , 837, 
    1 A.3d 59
     (2010); see also United States
    v. Cortez, 
    449 U.S. 411
    , 417–18, 
    101 S. Ct. 690
    , 
    66 L. Ed. 2d 621
     (1981) (‘‘An investigatory stop must be justified
    by some objective manifestation that the person
    stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity.
    . . . [That] is the central teaching of this [c]ourt’s
    [f]ourth [a]mendment jurisprudence.’’ [Citations omit-
    ted; emphasis omitted; footnote omitted; internal quota-
    tion marks omitted.]). For an officer’s suspicion of
    criminal activity to be objectively reasonable, the offi-
    cer ‘‘must be able to point to specific and articulable
    facts which, taken together with rational inferences
    from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion
    . . . .’’ (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks
    omitted.) State v. Cyrus, 
    supra, 838
    . In the present case,
    we agree with the conclusion of the trial court that,
    from the time Morales and Lawlor first observed the
    defendant standing in the Subway lot until they and
    Mercado converged on his location, the officers had no
    reasonable, articulable suspicion that he was engaged
    in criminal conduct. We further conclude that the two
    additional factors that arose as the officers were
    approaching—that the defendant turned to walk away,
    and that his hands moved near his waist as he did
    so—also do not support a reasonable and articulable
    suspicion of criminal activity. Accordingly, we conclude
    that the warrantless seizure was illegal.
    It is undisputed that, prior to the time the officers
    entered the lot to question the defendant, he did not
    make any suspicious statements or nervous gestures.
    He was just standing outside at night. It is well estab-
    lished that the fact that a citizen chooses to stand out-
    side at the dinner hour, in a neighborhood plagued by
    crime, does not warrant any reasonable and articulable
    suspicion that he himself is engaged in criminal activity.
    See State v. Santos, 
    267 Conn. 495
    , 508–509, 
    838 A.2d 981
     (2004) (presence of individual in high crime area
    at night not sufficient to justify seizure), abrogated on
    other grounds by State v. Burroughs, 
    288 Conn. 836
    ,
    844 n.5, 
    955 A.2d 43
     (2008); State v. Hammond, 
    257 Conn. 610
    , 625, 
    778 A.2d 108
     (2001) (relying on United
    States v. Gray, 
    213 F.3d 998
    , 1001 [8th Cir. 2000], for
    proposition that standing on street in high crime area
    before 10 p.m. in cold weather insufficient to justify
    Terry stop); see also United States v. Blair, 
    524 F.3d 740
    , 751 (6th Cir. 2008) (10:30 p.m. is ‘‘not late enough
    to arouse suspicion of criminal activity,’’ even in high
    crime area); People v. Bower, 
    24 Cal. 3d 638
    , 645, 
    597 P.2d 115
    , 
    156 Cal. Rptr. 856
     (1979) (time of 8:37 p.m.,
    ‘‘while falling during darkness in winter, is simply not
    a late or unusual hour nor one from which any inference
    of criminality may be drawn’’); People v. Bower, 
    supra, 645
     (cautioning that ‘‘high crime area justification is
    easily subject to abuse’’ [internal quotation marks omit-
    ted]); Commonwealth v. Helme, 
    supra,
     
    399 Mass. 298
    ,
    302 (stop not justified where defendant’s car was
    parked with interior lights on and engine running at
    12:30 a.m. in parking lot outside pub that was open for
    business). Compare 4 W. LaFave, supra, § 9.5 (e), pp.
    691–92 (not suspicious for individual to stand outside
    residential or commercial establishment in evening),
    with id., p. 688 n.180 (listing cases finding reasonable
    suspicion that suspect was casing for possible burglary
    where suspicious conduct took place after midnight
    outside closed or abandoned establishments), and id.,
    § 9.5 (g), p. 741 n.346 (similar). Quite simply, ‘‘[t]oo
    many people fit this description for it to justify a reason-
    able suspicion of criminal activity.’’ (Internal quotation
    marks omitted.) United States v. Gray, supra, 
    213 F.3d 1001
    .
    Nor does standing in a private lot for a few seconds
    constitute loitering, particularly without any indication
    that the person is engaged in otherwise improper con-
    duct or has been asked to leave the premises. See
    Bridgeport Municipal Code § 9.04.010; see also Wain-
    wright v. New Orleans, 
    392 U.S. 598
    , 604, 
    88 S. Ct. 2243
    ,
    
    20 L. Ed. 2d 1322
     (1968) (Warren, C. J., dissenting from
    dismissal of writ of certification as improvidently
    granted); United States v. James, 
    62 F. Supp. 3d 605
    ,
    612 (E.D. Mich. 2014); State v. Grace, 
    28 Kan. App. 2d 452
    , 459, 
    17 P.3d 951
     (2001).
    In the present case, Morales and Lawlor saw an other-
    wise nondescript man—if they could even discern that
    the vague ‘‘silhouette’’ they saw was male—standing
    outside a restaurant and apartment building for a few
    seconds at 7 p.m., in a city with a generally high crime
    rate. This particular location had not reported any crimi-
    nal activity for at least the prior four months, and no
    incidents had been reported in the area that evening.
    There are 1001 legitimate reasons why a man might
    pause for a moment outside an open eatery at the dinner
    hour. He might have been meeting friends, family, or
    colleagues for supper; waiting for his children to come
    out of the restroom; reviewing the menu; checking to
    see if a friend was inside; pondering whether he was
    in the mood for sandwiches or fish; taking a smoke
    break; making a private call; or just getting a breath of
    fresh air. This was not a case where the defendant
    looked into a store window one dozen times without
    entering; see Terry v. Ohio, 
    supra,
     
    392 U.S. 6
    ; staked
    out a store for an extended period of time, from an
    unusual location; see State v. Thurlow, 
    485 A.2d 960
    ,
    963 (Me. 1984); or paid particular attention to a store’s
    cash registers. See Mosley v. State, 
    289 Md. 571
    , 572,
    
    425 A.2d 1039
     (1981). Quite simply, the officers were
    unable to articulate anything remarkable, let alone sus-
    picious, about this particular individual that would
    differentiate him from any of the myriad other citizens
    who might have paused for a moment in any residential
    or commercial area of Bridgeport that evening, or that
    would suggest that he was preparing to commit a crime.
    As Justice Glass explained in his dissenting opinion in
    State v. Cofield, 
    220 Conn. 38
    , 50, 
    595 A.2d 1349
     (1991),
    ‘‘[m]any of our less fortunate citizens are forced to
    establish their homes in or near locales of criminal
    repute, or they travel to such places to call upon friends
    or engage in an infinite range of innocuous human activ-
    ities. . . . [T]he crime rate of a particular area cannot
    transform otherwise innocent-appearing circumstances
    into circumstances justifying the seizure of an individ-
    ual.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks
    omitted.)
    In fact, the defendant’s conduct in this case was far
    less suspicious than conduct that has been held to be
    insufficient, as a matter of law, to justify a seizure. In
    State v. Donahue, 
    251 Conn. 636
    , 639, 
    742 A.2d 775
    (1999), cert. denied, 
    531 U.S. 924
    , 
    121 S. Ct. 299
    , 
    148 L. Ed. 2d 240
     (2000), for example, the police observed an
    individual idle his car at 1:50 a.m. in a vacant lot outside
    a closed social club, on a street that ‘‘ ‘had experienced
    a dramatic increase in criminal activity in the previous
    four to six weeks . . . .’ ’’ Notwithstanding that
    ‘‘ ‘[i]ndividuals would often park their vehicles at the
    commercial establishments along [that particular
    street] and then walk through [a] cemetery into [a]
    housing project to engage in [drug dealing and prostitu-
    tion]’ ’’; id.; we concluded that the circumstances did
    not give rise to a reasonable and articulable suspicion
    of criminal activity. Id., 648. Allowing the police to exe-
    cute a seizure without any information linking that par-
    ticular individual to any particular crime, we reasoned,
    would permit law enforcement to improperly profile
    entire neighborhoods and communities as criminal. Id.,
    648 and n.11. ‘‘This court,’’ we concluded, ‘‘cannot per-
    mit such a suspension of constitutional protections.’’
    Id., 648.
    Looking to other jurisdictions, the most similar case
    to the present case appears to be People v. Revoal, 
    269 P.3d 1238
     (Colo. 2012) (en banc). In that case, the police
    observed an individual standing outside a closed Sub-
    way shop at 11:30 p.m., in an area that had experienced
    a recent history of robberies. Id., 1239. They observed
    the individual look to the left and to the right, as if
    watching for something, and then walk to a dark area
    across the lot, behind an open liquor store. Id. When
    he saw their patrol car approaching, the individual
    turned and walked in the opposite direction. Id. Consid-
    ering all of these circumstances, the Supreme Court of
    Colorado unanimously concluded that the officers did
    not have a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify
    an investigatory stop. Id. In the present case, under
    circumstances even less suspicious than those in Revoal
    and Donahue, we likewise conclude that there was no
    legitimate reason for Morales, Lawlor, and Mercado
    to seize the defendant at the time they entered the
    Subway lot.
    The only events of potential constitutional signifi-
    cance that transpired between the time the two cruisers
    entered the lot and the time that Mercado successfully
    commanded the defendant to stop are: (1) the fact that
    the defendant turned to leave when the police arrived;
    and (2) the fact that the defendant’s hand moved near
    his waistband as he turned. These factors, taken
    together with those previously discussed, also do not
    provide sufficiently specific grounds to support a rea-
    sonable conclusion that the defendant was involved in
    criminal activity.
    First, the fact that the defendant turned to walk away
    when he saw Morales and Lawlor driving into the Sub-
    way lot does not suggest that he was up to something
    nefarious. It is true that an individual’s ‘‘[h]eadlong
    flight’’ upon perceiving police may justify a Terry stop.
    Illinois v. Wardlow, 
    528 U.S. 119
    , 124, 
    120 S. Ct. 673
    ,
    
    145 L. Ed. 2d 570
     (2000); accord State v. Middleton, 
    170 Conn. 601
    , 605, 
    368 A.2d 66
     (1976). The mere fact that
    a citizen turns and walks away from an approaching
    police officer does not, however, support a reasonable
    and articulable suspicion of criminality. State v. Ham-
    mond, supra, 
    257 Conn. 625
    ; see also United States v.
    Jones, 
    584 F.3d 1083
    , 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (stating
    federal rule), cert. denied, 
    559 U.S. 1044
    , 
    130 S. Ct. 2081
    ,
    
    176 L. Ed. 2d 428
     (2010); State v. Milotte, 
    95 Conn. App. 616
    , 617, 
    897 A.2d 683
     (2006) (fact that defendant, in
    area where driving under influence arrests are common,
    appeared to drive so as to avoid police officer held too
    speculative to justify Terry stop), appeal dismissed, 
    281 Conn. 612
    , 
    917 A.2d 25
     (2007); State v. Hicks, 
    241 Neb. 357
    , 362, 
    488 N.W.2d 359
     (1992) (majority rule among
    states is that citizens may avoid or retreat from police
    presence without creating reasonable suspicion of crim-
    inality). We have recognized that ‘‘merely veering off
    course may be a wholly appropriate response to the
    sudden appearance of police officers in the roadway
    and is consistent with going about one’s business
    . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ben-
    ton, supra, 
    304 Conn. 850
    . In the present case, not only
    did the defendant not flee headlong from the officers,
    but he did not flee at all; Morales even rejected the
    suggestion that the defendant had walked away
    ‘‘quickly.’’
    There are a number of legitimate reasons why a law-
    abiding citizen may not desire to remain on the scene
    when the police appear, especially in a dangerous neigh-
    borhood where police-citizen relations may be strained.
    See Alberty v. United States, 
    162 U.S. 499
    , 511, 
    16 S. Ct. 864
    , 
    40 L. Ed. 1051
     (1896) (noting that, as matter of
    common knowledge, people who are entirely innocent
    may seek to depart crime scene due to fear of being
    mistakenly apprehended or unwillingness to appear as
    witnesses). As Justice Stevens elaborated in his concur-
    ring and dissenting opinion in Illinois v. Wardlow,
    
    supra,
     
    528 U.S. 131
    –34, ‘‘a reasonable person may con-
    clude that an officer’s sudden appearance indicates
    nearby criminal activity. And where there is criminal
    activity there is also a substantial element of danger—
    either from the criminal or from a confrontation
    between the criminal and the police. These considera-
    tions can lead to an innocent and understandable desire
    to quit the vicinity with all speed.
    ‘‘Among some citizens, particularly minorities and
    those residing in high crime areas, there is also the
    possibility that the fleeing person is entirely innocent,
    but, with or without justification, believes that contact
    with the police can itself be dangerous, apart from any
    criminal activity associated with the officer’s sudden
    presence. . . . [T]he evidence supporting the reason-
    ableness of these beliefs is too pervasive to be dismissed
    as random or rare, and too persuasive to be disparaged
    as inconclusive or insufficient.’’ (Footnotes omitted.)
    See also State v. Hicks, 
    supra,
     
    241 Neb. 363
     (‘‘[f]ear or
    dislike of authority, distaste for police officers based
    upon past experience, exaggerated fears of police bru-
    tality or harassment, and fear of unjust arrest are all
    legitimate motivations for avoiding the police’’). It
    would be ironic, to say the least, if we were to rely on
    a defendant’s freedom to leave as evidence that there
    was not a seizure but then rely on the mere exercise
    of that ability to conclude that there is a reasonable
    suspicion that justifies a seizure.
    Turning to the second factor, the state contends that
    the fact that Lawlor saw the defendant ‘‘engage in move-
    ments around his waistband as he walked’’ led the offi-
    cers reasonably to suspect the defendant of criminal
    activity. Courts and commentators have recognized,
    however, that the mere fact that the police report that
    a suspect moved his hands in the area of his waist,
    without further context or detail, does not justify a
    warrantless seizure. See In re Jeremy P., 
    197 Md. App. 1
    , 14, 
    11 A.3d 830
     (2011) (reviewing ‘‘waistband’’ cases
    from various jurisdictions and concluding that ‘‘a police
    officer’s observation of a suspect making an adjustment
    in the vicinity of his waistband does not give rise to
    reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement sufficient
    to justify a Terry stop’’). Because a typical man’s hands
    hang only a few inches or so below his waist, under
    normal circumstances it is virtually impossible to turn
    and walk off in such a way that the hands do not appear
    to come into proximity thereto. Surely it cannot be the
    case that any man living in a high crime neighborhood
    who appears to move his hands in the vicinity of his
    waist as the police approach, or who engages in com-
    monplace and innocuous conduct such as briefly
    adjusting his pants, thereby subjects himself to search
    and seizure. See Duhart v. United States, 
    589 A.2d 895
    ,
    899–900 (D.C. 1991).
    The officers in the present case did not provide the
    sort of detailed testimony that has been found to sup-
    port a reasonable and articulable suspicion of gun pos-
    session in other cases. For example, there was no
    testimony describing a gun-shaped bulge in the clothing,
    an awkward gait or arm movement typical of those
    carrying concealed guns, an informant’s tip that the
    subject was armed, or the fact that persons similarly
    situated to the defendant frequently carry unlicensed
    guns. See, e.g., United States v. Parker, 
    277 Fed. Appx. 48
    , 51 (2d Cir. 2008); State v. Mann, 
    271 Conn. 300
    ,
    322–26, 
    857 A.2d 329
     (2004), cert. denied, 
    544 U.S. 949
    ,
    
    125 S. Ct. 1711
    , 
    161 L. Ed. 2d 527
     (2005); 4 W. LaFave,
    supra, § 9.6 (a), pp. 855–62. In fact, the officers never
    even testified that they actually believed the defendant
    was carrying a weapon. Although we have recognized
    a compelling interest in preserving officer safety; see
    State v. Mangual, 
    311 Conn. 182
    , 209–10, 
    85 A.3d 627
    (2014); mere conclusory testimony that the officers
    were concerned for their safety does not constitute the
    sort of specific, articulable evidence necessary to justify
    a Terry stop. See Pinnock v. New Haven, 
    553 F. Supp. 2d 130
    , 141 (D. Conn. 2008).
    Accordingly, while we remain cognizant of law
    enforcement officers’ legitimate safety concerns, we
    cannot allow the police to invoke an individual’s waist-
    band like a talisman in order to justify any seizure after
    the fact. Particularly in a case such as the present one,
    where the facts that have been asserted as justifying
    an officer safety patdown—repeated fiddling with the
    waistband and refusal to comply with officers’ orders—
    are almost entirely facts that the officers neglected to
    memorialize in their official incident report, and then
    claimed to remember two years later at a suppression
    hearing where they were unable to recall other basic
    details of the incident,13 we should be extremely wary
    of sanctioning a seizure in the absence of truly specific
    and articulable evidence that the defendant was
    engaged in criminal conduct.
    A decision of the Supreme Court of Colorado is
    instructive in this regard. See People v. Thomas, 
    660 P.2d 1272
     (Colo. 1983), overruled on other grounds by
    People v. Archuleta, 
    980 P.2d 509
    , 515 (Colo. 1999). The
    facts of Thomas are remarkably similar to those of the
    present case. While stopped at a red light, police officers
    observed the defendant, Joseph Thomas, ‘‘ ‘just stand-
    ing’ ’’ in the parking lot of a fast-food restaurant. Id.,
    1273. Upon their approach, Thomas placed his hand in
    his pocket, and either walked or ran across the lot
    toward an adjoining building. Id., 1273–74. The court
    concluded that the mere fact that an individual in a
    high crime area makes a ‘‘ ‘furtive gesture’ ’’ about his
    clothing and quickly leaves the scene upon the arrival
    of law enforcement is clearly insufficient to justify a
    seizure. Id., 1275–76, 1276 n.2.
    By contrast, our decision in State v. Mann, 
    supra,
    271 Conn. 325
    , on which the Appellate Court relied;
    State v. Edmonds, supra, 
    151 Conn. App. 776
    ; is readily
    distinguishable. In that case, the police had specific
    prior information that drugs were being packaged and
    sold from the apartment in question. State v. Mann,
    
    supra,
     323–24. Upon confronting the police at the apart-
    ment door, the defendant in that case immediately
    thrust his hand into his pocket. 
    Id., 324
    . Under those
    circumstances, and given the ‘‘well established correla-
    tion between drug dealing and firearms,’’ we concluded
    that there was a reasonable suspicion that the defendant
    was armed and posed an imminent danger to the police.
    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) 
    Id., 325
    .
    In the present case, by contrast, there was no specific
    and articulable basis for the officers to believe that the
    defendant was engaged in criminal conduct, that he
    was reaching for a weapon, or that they were in any
    immediate danger. For these reasons, we conclude that
    the officers’ seizure of the defendant was not supported
    by a reasonable and articulable suspicion that he was
    engaged in criminal conduct and, accordingly, that his
    motion to suppress the narcotics evidence obtained in
    violation of his constitutional rights should have
    been granted.
    The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and
    the case is remanded to that court with direction to
    reverse the judgment of the trial court and to remand
    the case to the trial court with direction to grant the
    defendant’s motion to suppress.
    In this opinion ROGERS, C. J., and PALMER, EVE-
    LEIGH and ROBINSON, Js., concurred.
    1
    We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal limited
    to the following two issues: (1) ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly determine
    that the record was not adequate for appellate review of the defendant’s
    claim that he was seized when Sergeant Ronald Mercado commanded him
    to stop?’’; and (2) ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the
    defendant was not seized until police officers conducted a patdown search
    of the defendant’s person?’’ State v. Edmonds, 
    314 Conn. 925
    , 
    100 A.3d 855
    (2014). Because the certified questions are inextricably linked with the
    related issue of whether the officers’ seizure of the defendant was reason-
    able, and because the defendant briefed that question extensively and the
    state—while declining to brief the question before this court—briefed it
    before the Appellate Court and argued it at oral argument before this court,
    we address it herein as well. See Montoya v. Montoya, 
    280 Conn. 605
    , 617
    n.11, 
    909 A.2d 947
     (2006).
    2
    The fourth amendment to the United States constitution provides in
    relevant part: ‘‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
    papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
    be violated . . . .’’
    3
    Article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution provides in relevant
    part: ‘‘The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
    possessions from unreasonable searches or seizures . . . .’’
    Article first, § 9, of the Connecticut constitution provides: ‘‘No person
    shall be arrested, detained or punished, except in cases clearly warranted
    by law.’’
    Although we have determined that, under certain circumstances, the rele-
    vant provisions of the state constitution provide broader protection from
    unreasonable search and seizure than does the fourth amendment; see, e.g.,
    State v. Oquendo, 
    223 Conn. 635
    , 649–50, 
    613 A.2d 1300
     (1992); our analysis
    and resolution of the present appeal would be the same under either constitu-
    tion. We recognize, however, that the defendant’s claim that he was seized the
    moment that two police cruisers approached him from opposite directions in
    the parking lot, and before he was ordered to stop, is cognizable only under
    the constitution of Connecticut, because the United States Supreme Court
    has held that the fourth amendment is not implicated until a suspect actually
    submits to a show of authority by the police or is physically detained.
    California v. Hodari D., 
    499 U.S. 621
    , 628–29, 
    111 S. Ct. 1547
    , 
    113 L. Ed. 2d 690
     (1991).
    4
    Only three witnesses testified at the suppression hearing: two of the three
    arresting officers, and a sergeant with the Bridgeport Police Department
    (department) called by the defense for the limited purpose of establishing
    that the department’s computer aided dispatch system had not recorded
    any incidents at the location of the defendant’s arrest during the four months
    preceding the defendant’s arrest.
    5
    The court found, rather, that ‘‘[i]t was dark outside . . . .’’
    6
    See Time and Date AS, ‘‘Bridgeport, CT, USA—Sunrise, Sunset, and
    Daylength, January 2011,’’ available at http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/
    usa/bridgeport?month=1&year=2011 (last visited June 1, 2016); see also State
    v. Morris, 
    47 Conn. 179
    , 180 (1879) (‘‘[t]he time of the rising or setting of
    the sun on any given day belongs to a class of facts . . . of which courts
    will take judicial notice’’).
    7
    When the trial court asked Morales whether the fidgeting hand motions
    occurred at the same time as the defendant professed his innocence, Morales
    responded ambiguously: ‘‘[n]o, I believe that was before.’’ (Emphasis added.)
    8
    Under Golding, a criminal defendant can prevail on an unpreserved
    claim of constitutional error if all of the following conditions are met: ‘‘(1)
    the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is
    of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right;
    (3) the alleged constitutional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the
    defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the
    state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional
    violation beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ (Footnote omitted.) State v. Golding,
    supra, 
    213 Conn. 239
    –40; see also In re Yasiel R., 
    317 Conn. 773
    , 781, 
    120 A.3d 1188
     (2015) (modifying third prong of Golding).
    9
    Because we conclude, taking all of the relevant circumstances into
    account, that the defendant was seized without reasonable justification when
    Mercado commanded him to stop, we need not consider the defendant’s
    alternative theory that he was seized at the outset, when the officers con-
    verged on his position in the center of the parking lot.
    10
    See footnotes 2 and 3 of this opinion.
    11
    Accordingly, this case is readily distinguishable from State v. Brunetti,
    
    279 Conn. 39
    , 
    901 A.2d 1
     (2006), cert. denied, 
    549 U.S. 1212
    , 
    127 S. Ct. 1328
    ,
    
    167 L. Ed. 2d 85
     (2007), in which the defendant, who had taken the lead
    during the suppression hearing; 
    id.,
     48 n.14; and consistently argued that
    his father’s consent to search was invalid, shifted gears on appeal and began
    to argue for the first time that his mother’s opposition precluded a valid
    consent search. 
    Id.,
     48–49, 53.
    12
    It is unclear whether the supervisor’s signature is that of Mercado or
    another supervisor.
    13
    At the time of the suppression hearing in February, 2013, for example,
    Morales, who had conducted more than 500 such patdowns over the course
    of his career, was unclear about or unable to recall a number of significant
    details of the January, 2011 incident involving this particular defendant:
    whether there were any cars in the lot; whether he patted the defendant
    down on a vehicle; who transported the defendant from the scene; which
    officer was driving the cruiser; whether Mercado was accompanied by
    another officer; where Mercado parked; what statements the defendant
    made upon being confronted; whether the defendant was wearing a hood;
    the circumstances under which the defendant provided the police with two
    different addresses; and which officer questioned the defendant. Morales
    did testify, however, that he specifically recalled: the defendant tussling
    with his pants in the area of his waistband and belt buckle; placing his
    hands behind him; fixing his pants; and ignoring the officers’ commands
    that he keep his hands in plain view.
    When Lawlor was first questioned as to what concern led to the need for
    an officer safety patdown, he replied only that he was concerned because
    the defendant initially started to walk away from the police and denied having
    robbed anyone. The prosecutor, however, responded by further prompting
    Lawlor: ‘‘[D]id the defendant make any movements with his hands at all to
    the best of your recollection?’’ Lawlor then volunteered that, in fact, the
    defendant had ‘‘moved them toward his waistband when he was walking
    away.’’ Neither officer was able to explain why they had neglected to include
    these key details in their official incident report, which stated only that the
    defendant ‘‘kept moving his hands around in a nervous manner and yelling
    ‘this is embarrassing!’ while continuing to state his innocence.’’