DocketNumber: FILE Nos. 16201, 16202, 16203
Citation Numbers: 222 A.2d 236, 26 Conn. Super. Ct. 297, 26 Conn. Supp. 297
Judges: WRIGHT, J.
Filed Date: 6/7/1966
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
At a hearing before trial, testimony of several police officers was received, to the following effect:
At approximately 2 a.m. on May 14, 1965, one Jefferson ran into the police station to report that he had seen four colored men entering the United Beauty Supply Company warehouse on Fairfield Avenue, in Bridgeport, through the rear door. Jefferson, who lives next door to the warehouse, saw these men driving off in a truck, which he described as having a red cab, a blue body, and white lettering indicating that the truck belonged to a meat packing company. Jefferson also reported that one of the four colored men was Albert Newson, who was known to him, and another of the four men was "John Henry." When the police arrived at the scene shortly after receiving this report, they found that the rear door of the warehouse was open and a window had been smashed. The police put out a call to look for a truck with the foregoing description. At 5 a.m., Officer Flanagan came across such a truck, matching the description, with the name "Rall Packing Company" on the side. Officer Flanagan opened the rear door of the truck and found several packages of equipment of the type to be found in a beauty salon. The officer did not touch the equipment but immediately contacted police headquarters, and shortly thereafter two detectives arrived. The detectives kept the truck under surveillance until approximately 7 a.m., when the three defendants, Newson, Hill and Lamb, Negroes, approached the truck. The detectives saw the three defendants remove the contraband *Page 299 goods from the truck, which goods they placed at the side of a gasoline station nearby. The defendant Lamb drove off in the truck and was pursued by the two detectives, who arrested him at the Rall Packing house at approximately 7:15 a.m.
The defendants Hill and Newson were arrested at the scene by uniformed officers, who thereupon took Lamb and Hill to the police station. During the course of interrogation of Hill, at approximately 8:30 a.m., he was asked to place his belongings on a table, and certain matches, band-aids and keys, a wallet, a handkerchief, and other personal articles were revealed. He was then told that he could place his personal effects back in his pockets, but the matches and band-aids remained at the police station. Soon thereafter it was discovered by two other investigating officers that the premises of Mrs. Helen Taschijian, next door to the United Beauty Supply Company, had also been entered during the early morning hours, and Mrs. Taschijian had reported to the police that the only items missing were some band-aids and some matches.
Certainly the facts which have been revealed in this case, involving speedy information from *Page 300 Jefferson, involving immediate investigation by the police and the finding at the warehouse of an open rear door and broken glass, involving information about a truck with an individual description, involving an immediate city-wide search for the truck, involving a stakeout and the apprehension of the three defendants immediately after they had removed the contraband articles, would seem clearly to satisfy one or more of the three requirements of the statute, namely, speedy information, reasonable grounds for believing that a felony had been committed, or apprehension in the act.
The court finds that the contraband articles were seized within moments after the apprehension and arrest of the three defendants. Before that time, the articles in the back of the truck had not been touched by the police. The defendants claim that the opening of the rear door of the truck and the looking inside constituted a "search." In response to this contention, the state relies upon various decisions of the United States Supreme Court to the effect that latitude must be allowed in the search of a motor vehicle as such a vehicle can be *Page 301
speedily moved out of the locality. See Carroll v.United States,
The court, therefore, concludes that the seizure of the contraband beauty articles was a proper and legal seizure, as being incident to a lawful arrest.
The court, therefore, concludes that the matches and band-aids are now properly within the custody of the prosecution authorities, as having been obtained as incident to a lawful arrest.
The motion to suppress, in all its aspects, is therefore denied.
Willie B. Murray v. United States , 333 F.2d 409 ( 1964 )
State v. Magnano , 97 Conn. 543 ( 1922 )
Weeks v. United States , 34 S. Ct. 341 ( 1914 )
Agnello v. United States , 46 S. Ct. 4 ( 1925 )
State v. Davis , 24 Conn. Super. Ct. 22 ( 1962 )
State v. Reynolds , 101 Conn. 224 ( 1924 )
Carroll v. United States , 45 S. Ct. 280 ( 1925 )
United States v. Rabinowitz , 70 S. Ct. 430 ( 1950 )
Draper v. United States , 79 S. Ct. 329 ( 1959 )
Preston v. United States , 84 S. Ct. 881 ( 1964 )