State v. Rolon
Citations
- 337 Conn. 397
Syllabus
Convicted, on a conditional plea of nolo contendere, of the crime of posses- sion of a controlled substance with intent to sell, the defendant appealed, claiming that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress certain evidence that was seized after the police detained him, without a warrant, in the parking lot of the apartment building in which his codefendant, E, lived. The police had obtained an arrest warrant for a suspected drug trafficker, R, and a search warrant for R's apartment, which was in the same building as E's apartment.. Prior to executing the warrants, the police were surveilling the parking lot when they observed an unknown male, later identified as the defendant, engage in a brief conversation with R. The defendant and R then got into their respective vehicles and departed. A short time later, R was arrested for selling narcotics to an undercover officer, and the police prepared to execute the search warrant for R's apartment. At that time, however, the defendant and E returned to the parking lot in the defendant's vehicle. Approximately four or five uniformed police officers, at least one of whom had his gun drawn, immediately approached the defen- dant's parked vehicle. Upon reaching the driver's door, one of the officers opened the door and detected the odor of marijuana. The officer also observed a marijuana cigarette and drug packaging inside the vehicle. Both the defendant and E were removed from the vehicle and placed into custody. The police subsequently obtained a search warrant for E's apartment, and that search yielded additional narcotics and other related evidence. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized by the police, claiming that the warrantless search and seizure of his person and vehicle violated his constitutional rights. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the warrantless seizure fell within the exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement that authorizes law enforcement officers
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Vertefeuille
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court· 1968-06-10· cited 37,942×
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1967-12-18· cited 13,304×
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court· 1961-10-09· cited 9,088×
- Mincey v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1978-06-21· cited 3,849×
- Michigan v. SummersSupreme Court· 1981-06-22· cited 2,036×
- Muehler v. MenaSupreme Court· 2005-03-22· cited 937×
- Bailey v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2013-02-19· cited 390×
- Burchett v. KieferSixth Circuit· 2002-11-19· cited 126×
- Lippert v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1984-02-01· cited 112×
- State v. ClarkSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-01-30· cited 89×
- Croom v. BalkwillEleventh Circuit· 2011-07-07· cited 86×
- State v. EadySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-07-06· cited 77×
- United States v. JenningsSeventh Circuit· 2008-09-15· cited 64×
- United States v. SanchezTenth Circuit· 2009-02-10· cited 48×
- United States v. Carlton A. ReidD.C. Circuit· 1993-07-23· cited 48×
- State v. TorresSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-11-26· cited 43×
- Stanford v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1999-04-16· cited 14×
- State v. KaulNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 2017-03-13· cited 11×
- State v. WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina· 2018-12-21· cited 11×
- State v. Kurtis Thomas KellyIdaho Court of Appeals· 2015-06-19· cited 9×
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.