Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 54 — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · Chapter 959 — Court Jurisdiction and Power
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-33d (2026)

Interference with search

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person who forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates or interferes with any person authorized to serve or execute search warrants or to make searches and seizures while engaged in the performance of his duties with regard thereto or on account of the performance of such duties, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both; and any person who in committing any violation of this section uses any deadly or dangerous weapon shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years or both.

(1963, P.A. 652, S. 5.)

Cited. 165 C. 239.

Cited. 11 CA 47; 24 CA 330. Act of clenching mouth shut to avert DNA swab constitutes use of physical force to evade search warrant in violation of section. 144 CA 353.

Cited. 30 CS 211.

Cited. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 176.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1969–2020 · leading case: Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard, 579 U.S. 438 (2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard, 579 U.S. 438 (2016). “Despite these differences, success for all three petitioners depends on the proposition that the criminal law ordinarily may not compel a motorist to submit to the taking of a blood sample or to a breath test unless a warrant authorizing such testing is issued by a magistrate.…”
State v. Polanco, 797 A.2d 523 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 5× “3 *172 On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of the cocaine charges and, therefore, the court improperly denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal, and (2) the court improperly admitted into evidence a computer…”
Conroy v. Caron, 275 F. Supp. 3d 328 (D. Conn. 2017). “Section 54-33d applies to “[a]ny person who forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates or interferes with any person authorized to serve or execute search warrants or to make searches and seizures while engaged in the performance of his duties with regard thereto…”
Jenkins v. Comm'r of Corr., 726 A.2d 657 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 2× “We reverse the judgment of the habeas court. The following facts and procedural history provide the necessary background to the disposition of this appeal.”
State v. Browne, 970 A.2d 81 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 3× “16 Interestingly, General Statutes § 54-33d makes it a crime to interfere with the execution of a search warrant: “Any person who forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates or interferes with any person authorized to serve or execute search warrants or to make…”
State v. Jones, 966 A.2d 277 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2× “1 The defendant was acquitted on a charge of interfering with a search in violation of General Statutes § 54-33d as set forth in count five of the long form information.”
State v. Gonzalez, 71 A.3d 681 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 6× “The defendant, Miguel Gonzalez, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of interference with a search in violation of General Statutes § 54-33d. On appeal, the defendant claims (1) that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the crime of…”
State v. Jenkins, 588 A.2d 648 (Conn. App. Ct. 1991). · cites it 2× “The defendant appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, of interference with a search in violation of General Statutes § 54-33d, risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21, and reckless endangerment in the first degree in violation of § 53a-63 (a).”
State v. Romano, 332 A.2d 64 (Conn. 1973). “Romano, was found guilty by a jury of the crimes of pool selling in violation of § 53-295 of the General Statutes, destruction of property in violation of § 54-33e, and interference with search in violation of § 54-33d. In his appeal from the judgment rendered on the verdict, he…”
State v. Diaz, 793 A.2d 1204 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “” In abiding by the parameters set by the court in an evidentiary ruling favorable to the defendant, neither the state nor any of its witnesses referred to the name Rivera as an “alias.”
State v. Widget, 525 A.2d 548 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987). · cites it 2× “defendant was originally charged in four counts as follows: (1) possession of narcotics, in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a); (2) possession of narcotics with intent to sell, in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (a); (3) possession of drug paraphernalia, in…”
State v. Inzitari, 269 A.2d 35 (Conn. App. Ct. 1969). “The court, however, charged the jury on § 54-33d, “Interference with search,” and failed to give any instruction on § 54-33e, “Destruction of property.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-33d(2009) — 1 case
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard, 579 U.S. 438 (2016). “Despite these differences, success for all three petitioners depends on the proposition that the criminal law ordinarily may not compel a motorist to submit to the taking of a blood sample or to a breath test unless a warrant authorizing such testing is issued by a magistrate.…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.