automobile exception in Connecticut

2023On the defendant’s appeal to this court, held that the defendant was not entitled to a new trial because the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress was not improper, as the court properly relied on the automobile exception to the fourth amendment’s warrant requirement to determine that the police were not obligated to obtain a warrant before searching the vehicle: the defendant’s claim that the state was required to prove that he was in or near the vehicle at the time he was detained by the police in order for the automobile exception to apply was unavailing, as the defenda

2023The defendant principally relies on our Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Miller, 227 Conn. 363 , 384– 85, 630 A.2d 1315 (1993), to assert that the automobile exception does not apply unless the defendant, at the time the vehicle was searched, had just been seen by law enforcement in or near the vehicle.

2025One such exception to the warrant require- ment is the automobile exception.10 ‘‘The United States Supreme Court first recognized the automobile exception to the fourth amendment war- rant requirement in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149 , 45 S. Ct. 280 , 69 L.

2025One such exception to the warrant require- ment is the automobile exception.10 ‘‘The United States Supreme Court first recognized the automobile exception to the fourth amendment war- rant requirement in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149 , 45 S. Ct. 280 , 69 L.

2014Because the record is adequate and the claim is of constitutional magnitude, we will review the claim. 5 We recognize that our analysis of the defendant’s claim under Geisler requires us to reconsider State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 120 , 547 A.2d 10 (1988), which recognized the automobile exception under the state constitution, and State v. Longo, 243 Conn. 732, 739 , 708 A.2d 1354 (1998), which affirmed Dukes with respect to the constitutionality of the search of a closed container during a warrantless automobile search.

2014Because the record is adequate and the claim is of constitutional magnitude, we will review the claim. 5 We recognize that our analysis of the defendant’s claim under Geisler requires us to reconsider State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 120 , 547 A.2d 10 (1988), which recognized the automobile exception under the state constitution, and State v. Longo, 243 Conn. 732, 739 , 708 A.2d 1354 (1998), which affirmed Dukes with respect to the constitutionality of the search of a closed container during a warrantless automobile search.

2010In addition, as we have indicated, the New York Court of Appeals has held that the automobile exception “is equally applicable whether the search is conducted at the time and place where the automobile was stopped or whether, instead, the vehicle is impounded and searched after removal to the police station . . . .” People v. Blasich, supra, 73 N.Y.2d 681 ; see also Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 51-52 , 90 S. Ct. 1975 , 26 L.

2010In addition, as we have indicated, the New York Court of Appeals has held that the automobile exception “is equally applicable whether the search is conducted at the time and place where the automobile was stopped or whether, instead, the vehicle is impounded and searched after removal to the police station . . . .” People v. Blasich, supra, 73 N.Y.2d 681 ; see also Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 51-52 , 90 S. Ct. 1975 , 26 L.

2023State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412, 424 , 512 A.2d 160 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 940 , 107 S. Ct. 423 , 93 L.

2023State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412, 424 , 512 A.2d 160 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 940 , 107 S. Ct. 423 , 93 L.

2014Additionally, although the automobile exception that is recognized pursu- ant to the New York constitution only requires probable cause and permits the search of closed containers, the exception is limited to the passenger compartment and cases in which ‘‘police have validly arrested an occupant of an automobile, and they have reason to believe that the car may contain evidence related to the crime for which the occupant was arrested or that a weapon may be discovered or a means of escape thwarted . . . .’’ People v. Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49, 55 , 432 N.E.2d 745 , 447 N.Y.S.2d 873 (1982).

2014Additionally, although the automobile exception that is recognized pursu- ant to the New York constitution only requires probable cause and permits the search of closed containers, the exception is limited to the passenger compartment and cases in which ‘‘police have validly arrested an occupant of an automobile, and they have reason to believe that the car may contain evidence related to the crime for which the occupant was arrested or that a weapon may be discovered or a means of escape thwarted . . . .’’ People v. Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49, 55 , 432 N.E.2d 745 , 447 N.Y.S.2d 873 (1982).

2008Although this is a common factual scenario in cases involving search and seizures that are based on the automobile exception to the warrant requirement; see State v. Mounds, 81 Conn. App. 361, 363 , 840 A.2d 29 , cert. denied, 268 Conn. 914 , 845 A.2d 416 (2004); State v. Glenn, 30 Conn. App. 783, 787 , 622 *626 A.2d 1024 (1993); this court does not deem it to be a necessary prerequisite to a determination that probable cause existed in this case.

1998State v. Miller, 29 Conn. App. 207, 225 , 614 A.2d 1229 (1992), aff’d, 227 Conn. 363 , 630 A.2d 1315 (1993) (“[o]ur Supreme Court has recognized that article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution contains an automobile exception to its warrant requirement, under which the police may search the passenger compartment of an automobile, including closed containers therein, on the roadside, upon probable cause to believe that they contain the fruits or instrumentalities of a crime”); see State v. Glenn, 30 Conn. App. 783, 787 , 622 A.2d 1024 (1993) (upholding search of black bag found inside

2017See, e.g., State v. Winfrey , supra, 302 Conn. at 201 , 24 A.3d 1218 ; see also People v. Waxler , 224 Cal.App.4th 712 , 721, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 822 (2014) ("a law enforcement officer may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception when the officer has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains marijuana, which is contraband").

2017See, e.g., State v. Winfrey , supra, 302 Conn. at 201 , 24 A.3d 1218 ; see also People v. Waxler , 224 Cal.App.4th 712 , 721, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 822 (2014) ("a law enforcement officer may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception when the officer has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains marijuana, which is contraband").

2017See, e.g., State v. Winfrey , supra, 302 Conn. at 201 , 24 A.3d 1218 ; see also People v. Waxler , 224 Cal.App.4th 712 , 721, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 822 (2014) ("a law enforcement officer may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception when the officer has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains marijuana, which is contraband").

2017See, e.g., State v. Winfrey , supra, 302 Conn. at 201 , 24 A.3d 1218 ; see also People v. Waxler , 224 Cal.App.4th 712 , 721, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 822 (2014) ("a law enforcement officer may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception when the officer has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains marijuana, which is contraband").

2014See, e.g., State v. Crespo, 145 Conn. App. 547, 558 , 76 A.3d 664 , cert. granted on other grounds, 310 Conn. 953 , 81 A.3d 1181 (2013); State v. Duffus, 125 Conn. App. 17, 28 , 6 A.3d 167 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 903 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011); State v. Orellana, 89 Conn. App. 71, 84 , 872 A.2d 506 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 910 , 876 A.2d 1202 (2005). 7 Although Utah and New York have considered the constitutionality of a search of a closed container under their state constitutions, because of the irregularities in their jurisprudence on this issue, we do not include them in our analysis.

2014See, e.g., State v. Crespo, 145 Conn. App. 547, 558 , 76 A.3d 664 , cert. granted on other grounds, 310 Conn. 953 , 81 A.3d 1181 (2013); State v. Duffus, 125 Conn. App. 17, 28 , 6 A.3d 167 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 903 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011); State v. Orellana, 89 Conn. App. 71, 84 , 872 A.2d 506 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 910 , 876 A.2d 1202 (2005). 7 Although Utah and New York have considered the constitutionality of a search of a closed container under their state constitutions, because of the irregularities in their jurisprudence on this issue, we do not include them in our analysis.

2014Compare Pennyslvania v. Labron, supra, 518 U.S. 940 , with People v. Ruggles, 39 Cal. 3d 1 , 9–13, 702 P.2d 170 , 216 Cal. Rptr. 88 (1985); State v. Wallace, 80 Haw. 382 , 400–401 n.16, 910 P.2d 695 (1996); State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6 , 20–30, 965 A.2d 114 (2009); State v. Gomez, 122 N.M. 777, 788 , 932 P.2d 1 (1997); State v. Savva, 159 Vt. 75 , 87–88, 616 A.2d 774 (1991); State v. Tibbles, 169 Wn. 2d 364 , 368–70, 236 P.3d 885 (2010).

2014Compare Pennyslvania v. Labron, supra, 518 U.S. 940 , with People v. Ruggles, 39 Cal. 3d 1 , 9–13, 702 P.2d 170 , 216 Cal. Rptr. 88 (1985); State v. Wallace, 80 Haw. 382 , 400–401 n.16, 910 P.2d 695 (1996); State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6 , 20–30, 965 A.2d 114 (2009); State v. Gomez, 122 N.M. 777, 788 , 932 P.2d 1 (1997); State v. Savva, 159 Vt. 75 , 87–88, 616 A.2d 774 (1991); State v. Tibbles, 169 Wn. 2d 364 , 368–70, 236 P.3d 885 (2010).

2014See Berry v. State, 155 Md.

2014Ed. 2d 365 (2007); United States v. Gagnon, 373 F.3d 230, 240 (2d Cir. 2004) (reversing suppression of more than $300,000 found in duffel bag located in cab of tractor trailer).6 Although the defendant cites Justice Marshall’s dissent in United States v. Ross, supra, 456 U.S. 831 , which characterized the majority’s decision in Ross as creating a probable cause exception to the warrant requirement and which asserted that the ratio- nale for the automobile exception does not extend to closed containers located inside of a vehicle, as persua- sive authority, the weight of federal authority leads

2014Twenty-two states have considered the constitutionality of a search of a closed container under the automobile exception to the war- rant requirement pursuant to their state constitutions.7 Thirteen states have either explicitly or implicitly fol- lowed the Ross line of cases.8 The states that have expressly determined that a search of a container in a vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception is consti- tutional under their state constitutions have found fed- eral precedent persuasive; see People v. Smith, 95 Ill. 2d 412, 422 , 447 N.E.2d 809 (1983); State v. Bouchles, 457 A.2d 798, 802 (M

2014Twenty-two states have considered the constitutionality of a search of a closed container under the automobile exception to the war- rant requirement pursuant to their state constitutions.7 Thirteen states have either explicitly or implicitly fol- lowed the Ross line of cases.8 The states that have expressly determined that a search of a container in a vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception is consti- tutional under their state constitutions have found fed- eral precedent persuasive; see People v. Smith, 95 Ill. 2d 412, 422 , 447 N.E.2d 809 (1983); State v. Bouchles, 457 A.2d 798, 802 (M

2014Twenty-two states have considered the constitutionality of a search of a closed container under the automobile exception to the war- rant requirement pursuant to their state constitutions.7 Thirteen states have either explicitly or implicitly fol- lowed the Ross line of cases.8 The states that have expressly determined that a search of a container in a vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception is consti- tutional under their state constitutions have found fed- eral precedent persuasive; see People v. Smith, 95 Ill. 2d 412, 422 , 447 N.E.2d 809 (1983); State v. Bouchles, 457 A.2d 798, 802 (M