State v. Belton

State of Connecticut v. Daryl Belton

No. CR160289351

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Haven, New Haven

August 3, 2017

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Jon M Alander, Judge of the Superior Court.

The defendant has moved to suppress evidence, specifically, a firearm, ammunition and heroin, obtained after the search pursuant to a search warrant of the premises at 28 Dix Street in Hamden. The defendant contends that the four corners of the search warrant fail to establish probable cause for the search.

On October 13, 2016, Judge Anthony Avallone signed a search warrant for the first floor apartment at 28 Dix Street Hamden, Connecticut The affidavit, accompanying the warrant was signed by two members of the Safe Streets Task Force: Dennis Ryan, a Hamden police officer, and Anthony Duback, a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The following four paragraphs of the affidavit contain specific information related to the requested search.

" (5) During the week ending October 9th affiant met with a known and reliable confidential informant concerning street robberies in Hamden. According to CI1 there was a crew of criminals robbing drug dealers for cash, jewelry, guns and drugs. That CI1 further stated that several of the robberies were taking place in Hamden. According to CI1 one of the criminals was a black male known as Fat Daddy. CI1 stated that he/she observed Fat Daddy with a black 9mm handgun in his waistband. That Fat Daddy lived at 28 Dix Street in Hamden, Connecticut. CI1 observed Fat Daddy at 28 Dix Street in Hamden with a black handgun. That this Affiant knows Fat Daddy to be Daryl Belton DOB 01/28/72. Belton has previously been arrested at 28 Dix Street by the Hamden Police Department.

(6) That during the week ending October 9th, TFO Mastropetre met with a known and reliable confidential informant herein known as CI2. That CI2 had information about a black male committing robberies known as Fat Daddy. That CI2 observed Fat Daddy at 28 Dix Street. Hamden with a black handgun and a large amount of heroin. According to CI2 Fat Daddy robbed a drug dealer on the street for the heroin.

(7) That while conducting surveillance during the week ending October 9th this Affiant observed Daryl Belton walk out of 28 Dix Street and get into a blue vehicle parked in the driveway. That while using the surveillance van Sgt. Nawrocki observed Belton exit the blue vehicle parked in the driveway of 28 Dix Street Hamden and enter the residence through the side door.

(8) That Daryl Belton DOB 1/28/72 is a convicted felon with a history of Criminal Possession of Firearm, Robbery 1st Degree, and Possession of Narcotics."

" The standards for upholding a search warrant are well established, We uphold the validity of [the] warrant . . . [if] the affidavit at issue presented a substantial factual basis for the magistrate's conclusion that probable cause existed. [T]he magistrate is entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the facts presented. When a magistrate has determined that the warrant affidavit presents sufficient objective indicia of reliability to justify a search and has issued a warrant, a court reviewing that warrant at a subsequent suppression hearing should defer to the reasonable inferences drawn by the magistrate. Where the circumstances for finding probable cause are detailed, where a substantial basis for crediting the source of information is apparent, and when a magistrate has in fact found probable cause, the reviewing court should not invalidate the warrant by application of rigid analytical categories. We are also reminded that [i]n a doubtful or marginal case . . . our constitutional preference for a judicial determination of probable cause leads us to afford deference to the magistrate's determination. Lastly, it is well established that, in reviewing a search warrant affidavit, the reviewing court may consider only the information that was actually before the issuing judge at the time he or she signed the warrant." (Case citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Batts, 281 Conn. 682, 699-700, 916 A.2d 788 (2007).

" Probable cause to search exists if: (1) there is probable cause to believe that the particular items sought to be seized are connected with criminal activity or will assist in a particular apprehension or conviction . . . and (2) there is probable cause to believe that the items sought to be seized will be found in the place to be searched . . . Probable cause, broadly defined, [comprises] such facts as would reasonably persuade an impartial and reasonable mind not merely to suspect or conjecture, but to believe that criminal activity has occurred. [I]t is axiomatic that [a] significantly lower quant[um] of proof is required to establish probable cause [rather] than guilt . . . [P]robable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity." (Case citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 700-01.

The determination of whether probable cause exists under the fourth amendment to the federal constitution, and under article first, § 7, of our state constitution, is made pursuant to a " totality of circumstances" test. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 231-32, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); State v. Barton, 219 Conn. 529, 544, 594 A.2d 917 (1991). Under the Gates test, a court must examine all of the evidence relating to the issue of probable cause and, on the basis of that evidence, make a commonsense, practical determination of whether probable cause existed. See State v. Barton, supra, 544. The question is whether there is a fair probability that the contraband was in the place to be searched. State v. Smith, 257 Conn. 216, 223, 777 A.2d 182 (2001). Where, as here, the police relied on information provided to them by an informant, an examination of the informant's reliability (or veracity) and the basis of his or her knowledge should be regarded as highly relevant in determining whether, under the " totality of the circumstances, " probable cause existed. Id., at 223-24; State v. Barton, supra, 537-38; State v. Velasco, 248 Conn. 183, 192, 728 A.2d 493 (1999).

The defendant has moved to suppress the evidence garnered from the search of 28 Dix Street on the ground that the warrant is based on unsubstantiated allegations of the confidential informants. Specifically, the defendant asserts that the affidavit fails to establish probable cause for the following reasons: (1) the statements that the defendant was personally observed by the confidential informants in possession of a firearm and narcotics are untimely because they are devoid of any time frame; (2) the affidavit fails to disclose the basis for the statements by the confidential informants that the defendant is committing street robberies; and (3) it lacks a sufficient basis to find that the confidential informants were reliable. I conclude that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the affidavit accompanying the search warrant lacked a substantial factual basis for the magistrate's conclusion that probable cause existed that a firearm and narcotics were present at the premises at 28 Dix Street, Hamden at the time of the search.

It is universally understood that " The facts in an affidavit supporting a search warrant must be sufficiently close in time to the issuance of the warrant and the subsequent search conducted so that probable cause can be said to exist as of the time of the search and not simply as of sometime in the past." United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 96 n.2, 126 S.Ct. 1494, 164 L.Ed.2d 195 (2006) (citations and quotation marks omitted). The linchpin of the state's claim that probable cause existed for the search of 28 Dix Street for a firearm on October 13, 2016 is that each confidential informant individually told the police that he had personally observed the defendant with a handgun at the premises. One informant also stated...