Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 780
Judges: PECK, J.
Filed Date: 1/15/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS
The respondent was arrested on December 24, 1996 for violation of General Statutes §
On May 20, 1997, he filed a motion to suppress all admissions, confessions or statements written and oral, made to the police or other Juvenile Court officials in the case. The grounds of the motion were that such statements were obtained in violation of the respondent's rights provided by (a) the
On or about July 28, 1997, the state filed a reply brief, claiming the search was justified by either (1) exigent circumstances or (2) the emergency doctrine exception to the warrant requirement.
A hearing was held on this matter on July 29, 1997, September CT Page 781 29, 1997 and October 20, 1997.
FACTS
The court finds the following facts. On December 24, 1996, at approximately 3:00 p. m., trooper Eric Dency of the state police, responded to a radio call that gunshots were being fired in the area of Maple and Harry Streets in Danielson, Connecticut. Dency went to the area where he patrolled listening for shots. He met Dennis Page, who lived on Harry Street. Page reported to Dency that he had heard several shots, went outside to investigate and through his binoculars saw additional shots being fired and a glint of chrome from an upstairs window on the north side of the respondent's house. After obtaining Page's statement, Dency pulled in the driveway of the respondent's house on Maple Street. Dency then radioed his information to headquarters. Troopers Murray, Fillmore, and Thomson and Sgt. Hogarty arrived. Dency was unsure if any one was in the house. Dency observed what he thought were gunshot shell casings on the ground on the northwest side of the house. As Dency and Hogarty approached the house, the respondent, a twelve-year-old, and his 15-year-old brother came to the door. The boys said no adults were present. The police asked the respondent and his brother who was shooting outside the window. Both boys acted very nervous and said no one was shooting. Dency believed the boys were not being truthful and there was a gun inside the house. The officers decided to enter the house to find the gun and any person who might have it, to ensure the safety of the boys, the officers and the community. Dency, Hogarty and Murray went in the house without asking permission of the boys. Dency drew his weapon upon entering. Dency stepped into the family room and found another twelve-year-old boy in there. Upon questioning, this boy said he had no knowledge of a weapon. Hogarty checked the boys for weapons. Dency went up the stairs followed by the respondent and Murray. Dency and Murray "cleared" the two bedrooms on the second floor to check for other individuals and concluded no one else was present. Dency believed the shots came from the boys' bedroom, for the window in that room corresponded to the window identified by Page. Dency and Murray did an extensive search of that bedroom. Dency observed a .22 caliber bullet on the floor of the boys' bedroom. Dency also saw a bag in the closet that contained a long shape, similar to the .22 caliber ammunition seen on the floor. Dency reached inside the bag and took out a long rifle cartridge. Dency told the respondent that several witnesses had seen the respondent shooting out the window. Dency asked the CT Page 782 respondent who the ammunition belonged to and whether there was a gun in the room. After being asked a second time about a gun, the respondent told Dency where the gun was. As Dency walked down the cellar stairs to tell Hogarty about the gun, he observed Hogarty and the respondent's brother in the cellar. The respondent's brother retrieved a handgun, a Jennings .22 caliber and gave it to Hogarty. Dency was given the gun from Hogarty. At that point, the officers arrested the three boys. The officers then stopped the search of the interior of the house and searched around the perimeter of the house where Dency had earlier observed the shell casings. Dency seized the shell casings that were on the ground outside.
The respondent was not given his Miranda rights nor was he told he had the right to have a parent or guardian present when he was answering the officers' questions. None of boys gave the officers permission to search the premises.
DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Suppress the Statements
The respondent moves to suppress all the statements he made to the officers or juvenile court officials on the ground that the statements were made without counsel present, without his parents being present and without advising him of his constitutional rights. General Statutes §
The court finds General Statutes §
B. Motion to Suppress the Tangible Evidence CT Page 783
"It is a fundamental principle of search and seizure law that, in the absence of exigent circumstances and probable cause for arrest, a person's house may not be entered without a warrant, and that warrantless searches and seizures inside a house are presumptively unreasonable. Payton v. New York,
In this matter, the officers had sufficient facts to justify a belief of a reasonable person that an offense had been committed. Reports of gunfire shots had been made to headquarters. A credible neighbor had heard the gunshots and seen flashes of gunfire from a second floor window of the respondent's house. There were shell casings on the ground outside the house below the window identified by the neighbor. The court finds that the officers had probable cause to proceed to the door of the house to inquire about the shooting. Two young boys came to the door, claiming that no adults were present and denying any knowledge of a shooting. The officers found the boys to be nervous and suspicious. The court finds there were exigent circumstances, based on danger to human life, that justified the CT Page 784 immediate search for the gun and any individuals who might be hiding in the house with the gun. See Arizona v. Hicks,
The court finds that because of exigent circumstances, which did not end until the gun was located and secured, the warrantless search of the respondent's house did not violate the respondent's right against unlawful searches and seizures provided by both the United States and Connecticut constitutions.
Thus, the motion to suppress the tangible evidence obtain, from the respondent's house is denied.
Peck, J.