Skip to main content
· 4/26/2021

State v. Pompei

Citations

  • 338 Conn. 749

Syllabus

Convicted of two counts of the crime of interfering with an officer, the defendant appealed, claiming that the trial court had improperly denied his motion to suppress certain evidence obtained after a police officer, L, positioned his cruiser behind the defendant's car and blocked the defendant's egress from the parking lot in which he was parked. L had reported to the parking lot in response to a dispatch concerning a possibly unconscious man in a parked car. L eventually aroused the defendant by tapping on the driver's side window, and, when the defen- dant lowered the window, L smelled alcohol. The defendant was uncoop- erative and slurring his words, and subsequently was arrested. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence of his statements and actions in the parking lot, claiming that he had been seized in violation of the fourth amendment as soon as L positioned his cruiser behind the defendant's car and prevented him from leaving. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that the defendant's encounter with L did not become a seizure until after the defendant awoke and lowered the window, as, up until that point, L was checking 750 OCTOBER, 2021 338 Conn. 749 State v. Pompei on the defendant's well-being pursuant to his community caretaking function rather than engaging in an investigatory stop. The court further concluded that, once the defendant awoke and began to interact with L, L had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the defendant had been operating his vehicle under the influence of alcohol. On the defen- dant appeal, held that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress on the ground that L was acting in his community caretaking capacity when he positioned his cruiser behind the defen- dant's car, as the limited intrusion on the defendant's liberty was reason- able and justified under the fourth amendment: L's arrival in the parking lot was in response to information, which made no men

Judges: Robinson; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.