State v. Lyons
Citations
- 203 Conn. App. 551
Syllabus
Following the search of a home located at 351 Noble Avenue in Bridgeport, the defendants, who all claimed to be residents of that address, were charged with various drug and weapons offenses. The warrant that supposedly authorized the search described the premises to be searched as ''349 Noble Avenue.'' 349 Noble Avenue and 351 Noble Avenue are separate units within the same duplex. Each unit has its own driveway, front entrance, mailbox, electric meter, and gas meter, and neither unit can be accessed from inside of the other unit. Prior to trial, the defen- dants filed motions to suppress the evidence seized during the search, claiming that, because the warrant authorized a search of the property identified as ''349 Noble Avenue,'' the search of 351 Noble Avenue was conducted without a warrant and that the seizure of the items could not be justified pursuant to any exception to the warrant requirement. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the defendants' motions and, on the state's motion, rendered judgment dismissing each informa- tion. The state, on the granting of permission, appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the defendant in the first case, L, who was the only defendant who did not testify at the hearing, failed to meet his burden of proving an expectation of privacy in the area searched and, therefore, did not have standing to proceed with his motion. Held: 1. The trial court did not err in determining that L met his burden of proving an expectation of privacy in the area searched by law enforcement officers and had standing to proceed with a motion to suppress: it is well established that owners, tenants, and even overnight guests of a dwelling have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that dwelling and, therefore, have standing to contest the legality of a search of the dwelling; moreover, the state's claims that the court relied on inadmissible hearsay and improperly took judicial notice of facts not testified to at the hearing in
Judges: Bright; Lavine; Cradle
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
54 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1967-12-18· cited 13,304×
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court· 1973-05-29· cited 11,783×
- Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court· 1971-06-21· cited 9,038×
- Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1980-04-15· cited 7,618×
- Simmons v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1968-03-18· cited 6,700×
- Rakas v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1979-01-15· cited 6,103×
- McDonald v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1948-12-20· cited 1,736×
- Minnesota v. OlsonSupreme Court· 1990-04-18· cited 1,715×
- Groh v. RamirezSupreme Court· 2004-02-24· cited 1,303×
- Maryland v. GarrisonSupreme Court· 1987-02-24· cited 1,107×
- Steele v. United States No. 1Supreme Court· 1925-04-13· cited 727×
- State v. BartonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-07-16· cited 178×
- Mary Velardi and Frances Velardi v. Cornelius R. Walsh, Jr. And Robert L. BoekSecond Circuit· 1994-11-15· cited 175×
- United States v. Russell R. George, AKA Rusty, and Pamela A. Johnson-Sherman, Francis R. LajoiceSecond Circuit· 1992-09-17· cited 170×
- United States v. BershchanskySecond Circuit· 2015-06-05· cited 122×
- United States v. Russell Bonner, United States of America v. Wayne BonnerFirst Circuit· 1986-12-30· cited 115×
- State v. BladesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-06-01· cited 96×
- United States v. ProutFifth Circuit· 1976-01-26· cited 89×
- Robinson v. Central Brass Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court· 1993-10-04· cited 82×
- State v. HillSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-05-21· cited 81×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.