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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-33f (2025)

Motion for return of unlawfully seized property and suppression as evidence

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A person aggrieved by search and seizure may move the court which has jurisdiction of such person's case or, if such jurisdiction has not yet been invoked, then the court which issued the warrant, or the court in which such person's case is pending, for the return of the property and to suppress for use as evidence anything so obtained on the ground that: (1) The property was seized without a warrant, or (2) the warrant is insufficient on its face, or (3) the property seized is not that described in the warrant, or (4) there was not probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant was issued, or (5) the warrant was illegally executed. In no case may the judge or judge trial referee who signed the warrant preside at the hearing on the motion.

(b) The motion shall be made before trial or hearing unless opportunity therefor did not exist or the defendant was not aware of the grounds for the motion, but the court in its discretion may entertain the motion at the trial or hearing.

(c) The court shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision of the motion. If the motion is granted, the property shall be restored unless otherwise subject to lawful detention and it shall not be admissible in evidence at any hearing or trial.

(1963, P.A. 652, S. 7; 1967, P.A. 4; 1969, P.A. 292, S. 1; P.A. 80-313, S. 10; P.A. 01-72, S. 6.)

History: 1967 act added proviso prohibiting judge who signed warrant from presiding at hearing on motion; 1969 act authorized aggrieved person to make motion “in the court in which his case is pending” for return of property and to suppress its use as evidence; P.A. 80-313 reorganized provisions and divided section into Subsecs.; P.A. 01-72 amended Subsec. (a) by making technical changes for purposes of gender neutrality and adding reference to judge trial referee.

History discussed. 152 C. 90. Cited. 154 C. 314, 321. Neither statement that affiant had information from reliable informant nor that apartment sought to be searched had been under police surveillance was sufficient grounds for issuance of warrant, hence search warrant was illegal. 155 C. 385. Motion to suppress evidence consisting of several marked bills found on defendant immediately after he was observed selling narcotics to an informer, obtained by search incident to his lawful arrest for commission of felony of illegal sale of narcotics, properly denied. Id., 516. Ruling denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence of narcotics seized by arresting officer from stolen car in defendant's possession without obtaining search warrant was superseded by ruling during trial admitting narcotics as evidence; where defendant driver of stolen car had been arrested and drugs were found in car on custodial search by arresting officer, motion to suppress use of drugs in evidence properly denied. 159 C. 201. Cited. 169 C. 322. Person aggrieved by search and seizure may move to suppress for use as evidence anything obtained upon warrant when there is not probable cause for believing the existence of grounds for warrant. 170 C. 618. Cited. 195 C. 668; 216 C. 150, see also 26 CA 423, 27 CA 291, 223 C. 902 and 225 C. 10, reversing judgment of Appellate Court in State v. Marsala; 223 C. 903; 226 C. 514; 239 C. 793.

Cited. 10 CA 561; 14 CA 605; 15 CA 251; 27 CA 370; 31 CA 548.

Use of motion to suppress. 29 CS 423. Motion to dismiss, motion to suppress, difference. 30 CS 211. Section implements fourth amendment of U.S. Constitution and Art. I, Sec. 7 of the Connecticut Constitution and is analogous to rule 41 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; purposes of rule. 33 CS 129.

Evidence obtained by an immediate search of defendant's apartment after her arrest for liquor violation was admissible; search without warrant was an incident to a lawful arrest. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 125. Where officers went beyond directives of warrant for search of defendant and certain premises and searched automobiles, evidence obtained was suppressed, but articles taken were not returned in absence of demand or request. Id., 422, 423. Property sought to be suppressed was voluntarily handed over to police officers by defendant's wife who was not party to defendant's appeal; he has no standing to claim violation of wife's constitutional rights as these are personal to her. Id., 605. Testimony or information, although not tangible, come within purview of statute. 5 Conn. Cir. Ct. 44. Although not expressly required, it is better practice for motion to suppress to be in writing. Id., 51. Motion by defendant to suppress evidence seized in search of his car dismissed by Circuit Court where prosecuting attorney had instituted bindover proceedings in Superior Court. Id., 119. While it is better practice to test legality of seizure in preliminary hearing, court may entertain motion to suppress at trial; officers did not search for papers where they had defendant under surveillance in his store and saw him putting papers under rafters of hatchway and picked them up upon arrest. Id., 613. Where there was probable cause to believe that defendant was in business of pool selling from allegations of affidavit, search warrant was properly issued. Id, 669. Burden of proof relative to the illegality of search and seizure is on accused; newspaper, policy sheet and pen discarded by accused were abandoned property and apprehension of them by police is not seizure of defendant's property. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 17. Doctrine of retroactivity not applied to procedural problem of this kind. Id., 192, 194. Motion to suppress must specify item to be suppressed. Id., 454. Cited. Id., 574, 584.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50 cases, 1964–2019 · leading case: State v. Diaz, 628 A.2d 567 (Conn. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Diaz, 628 A.2d 567 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 33× “The certified issue in this appeal is whether a criminal defendant is entitled, pursuant to article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution, and *516 General Statutes § 54-33f, 1 to de novo review of an issuing judge’s determination that probable cause existed to issue a…”
State v. Marsala, 579 A.2d 58 (Conn. 1990). · cites it 12× “*155 I The defendant claims that apart from any constitutional considerations, General Statutes § 54-33f 4 mandates the exclusion of illegally seized evidence and that the statute’s operation is unimpeded by any good faith exception.”
State v. Brown, 543 A.2d 750 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988). · cites it 14× “He argues (1) that General Statutes § 54-33f and Practice Book §§ 821 and 822 require suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence without regard to the good faith of the officers executing the search, and (2) that article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution does not…”
Boyles v. Preston, 792 A.2d 878 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 8× “The defendant argues that because the evidence had been suppressed in the prior criminal matter, it therefore was inadmissible in this matter pursuant to General Statutes § 54-33f (c). That subsection provides in relevant part that “[i]f the motion [to suppress unlawfully seized…”
State v. Canales, 916 A.2d 767 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 2× “, General Statutes § 54-33f (judge issuing search warrant may not hear motion to suppress); Practice Book § 41-17 (same); General Statutes § 51-183h (judge issuing arrest warrant may not preside at hearing attacking validity or sufficiency of warrant); General Statutes § 51-183c…”
State v. Eady, 733 A.2d 112 (Conn. 1999). · cites it 2× “, and General Statutes § 54-33f, to suppress illicit drugs seized during a search of his residence.”
State v. Ortiz, 848 A.2d 1246 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 54-33f prohibits a,judge who signed a search warrant from hearing a motion to suppress arising out of the execution of that warrant.”
State v. Jenkins, 842 A.2d 1148 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Practice Book § 41-12, General Statutes §§ 54-33f, 54-33k and 54-331, article first, § 7, of the constitution of Connecticut, and the fourth and fourteenth amendments to…”
State v. Mancinone, 545 A.2d 1131 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988). · cites it 2× “The defendant assumes without argument that a violation of General Statutes § 54-33c would also require suppression of the evidence because it would mean that “the warrant was illegally executed,” within the meaning of General Statutes § 54-33f (a) (5), our suppression statute.”
State v. Velasco, 728 A.2d 493 (Conn. 1999). · cites it 2× “, and General Statutes § 54-33f, to suppress the heroin and certain personal items that had been seized from the defendant’s person immediately following his arrest.”
State v. One or More Persons Over Whom Court's Jurisdiction Has Not Yet Been Invoked, 946 A.2d 896 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 3× “3 In support of Ms right to file the motion, the plaintiff cited General Statutes § 54-33f and Practice Book §§ 41-13 and 41-15.”
State v. Williams, 363 A.2d 72 (Conn. 1975). · cites it 2× “It is elementary that a search warrant may issue only on a showing of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.”
Show all 50 citing cases →
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.