State v. Dukes

Syllabus

The defendant, who had been on probation as a result of prior criminal con- victions, appealed from the trial court's judgment revoking his probation and sentencing him to eight years of incarceration. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the court erroneously found him in violation of his probation when it relied on evidence the police seized during an inventory search of his vehicle and inculpatory statements he made to the police. Held: This court declined to review, pursuant to State v. Golding (213 Conn. 233), the defendant's unpreserved claim that the trial court improperly relied on the warrantless seizure by the police of his cell phone and ammunition from his vehicle, as the record was inadequate to review that claim, the defendant having failed to raise any fourth amendment claim or request that the court exclude the evidence at the violation of probation hearing, and the court made no findings concerning the validity of the inventory search or whether the police had engaged in misconduct so as to warrant application of the exclusionary rule. The record was inadequate for this court to review, pursuant to Golding, the defendant's unpreserved claim that the inculpatory statements he made while in police custody should have been excluded at the violation of proba- tion hearing because he had not been advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436) prior to questioning, as the trial court did not make any factual findings or legal conclusions as to whether the defendant had been in custody or subject to interrogation, the record was unclear as to whether he had been advised of his rights pursuant to Miranda and he did not seek to exclude the statements or raise a Miranda claim at the violation of probation hearing. The evidence was sufficient for the trial court to find that the defendant violated his probation by engaging the police in a motor vehicle pursuit, evading responsibility in the operation of a motor vehicle and possessing a firear