State v. Fields

207 Conn.App. 791

263 A.3d 961

STATE of Connecticut

v.Joseph FIELDS

AC 43115

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 17, 2021

Officially released September 28, 2021

Kirstin B. Coffin, assigned counsel, with whom, on the brief, was David J. Reich, Roseland, NJ, for the appellant (defendant).

Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state's attorney, Rocky Hill, CT, with whom, on the brief, were Patrick J. Griffin, state's attorney, Palos Hills, IL, and James Dinnan, supervisory assistant state's attorney, New Haven, CT, for the appellee (state).

Bright, C. J., and Alexander and Norcott, Js.

NORCOTT, J.

The defendant, Joseph Fields, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs and operating a motor vehicle while having an elevated blood alcohol content in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (1) and (2), respectively. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly declined to suppress evidence of his performance of a field sobriety test and evidence of his blood alcohol content, the latter of which was obtained pursuant to a search warrant application,¹ because that evidence was the tainted fruit of his unlawful detention by the police. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found, and procedural history are relevant to our discussion. On August 2, 2017, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Glenn L. Bossie was operating his company's dump truck on Interstate 84. As he was driving down the right-hand lane, Bossie observed through the truck's mirrors a car approaching from behind at a high rate of speed. He then watched the car pull behind him, immediately pass his truck sideways, strike the center barrier, cross back over the highway, and then come to rest in a grassy area off of the highway. Bossie stopped his truck and approached the damaged, heavily smoking car to determine if its passengers were hurt. He observed a female, later identified as Kori Charette, walking up the embankment to the Route 691 interchange. Bossie contacted the police to report the accident.

Bossie then approached the defendant, who was in the driver's seat of the car. Bossie noticed that the defendant strongly smelled of alcohol. As Bossie spoke with the defendant, Charette began yelling, "hey, hey ... we got to get outta of here, we got to get outta of here." The defendant, after assuring Bossie that he was unharmed, followed Charette up the embankment and started hitchhiking on the ramp to Route 691. Bossie relayed this information to the 911 dispatcher. A truck stopped, and the defendant and Charette began running to get to the vehicle. The police, however, arrived at the scene as they were running to the truck, and the truck left the scene.

Trooper Fawn Ouellette was dispatched to the scene of the accident. As she was traveling to the scene, the dispatcher was watching the site through live feed cameras of the Department of Transportation (department). The dispatcher informed Trooper Ouellette that there was "a one car accident into the guardrail and that there were ... two occupants running from the scene." When Trooper Ouellette arrived at the scene, she observed the defendant and Charette walking down the right shoulder of the highway approximately 300 feet from where the vehicle involved in the crash was stopped. She approached them and briefly placed them in handcuffs for her safety and to prevent them from fleeing further. Another trooper arrived shortly thereafter to assist her.

Trooper Ouellette removed the handcuffs from the defendant and Charette, and she began administering field sobriety tests to the defendant. While speaking with the defendant, Trooper Ouellette noticed that his eyes were "glossy" and that his speech was slow and slurred. She also detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his breath. Trooper Ouellette administered the horizontal gaze nystagmus test² to the defendant, and he failed all three portions of the test. Trooper Ouellette then asked the defendant to perform another field sobriety test, the walk and turn test, but the defendant declined, citing neck pain. Thereafter, the defendant was transported to Saint Mary's Hospital in Waterbury. Trooper Ouellette remained at the scene, where she obtained Bossie's account of the accident. She also examined the defendant's car and found inside an empty bottle of beer, an empty bottle of Jägermeister liqueur, and two unopened bottles of vodka.

While the defendant was in the emergency department of the hospital, hospital personnel took blood and urine samples from him. Trooper Ouellette sought to obtain the toxicology test results from these samples through a search and seizure warrant. Trooper Ouellette prepared an affidavit as part of an application for a search and seizure warrant and attested that (1) she was dispatched to a motor vehicle accident and was advised en route that the two occupants in the vehicle were running from the scene, (2) when she arrived at the scene, she saw the defendant and Charette walking down the right shoulder of the highway approximately 300 feet from the vehicle, (3) upon speaking with the defendant, she immediately detected the odor of alcohol coming from his breath and noticed that his speech was slow and slurred and his eyes were glossy, (4) after the defendant was transported to the hospital, she inspected the vehicle and observed an empty bottle of beer, an empty bottle of Jägermeister, and two full bottles of vodka, and (5) a witness told Trooper Ouellette at the scene that he had observed the defendant's vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed, slide out of control, and crash and that, when he spoke to the defendant, he could smell alcohol on his breath. Thereafter, the court issued the warrant, and Trooper Ouellette obtained the toxicology test results. The toxicology report showed that the defendant had a blood alcohol content of 0.20 percent, two and one-half times the statutory limit of 0.08 percent. See General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (2).

The defendant was charged by way of a long form information with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of § 14-227a (a) (1), operating a motor vehicle with an elevated blood alcohol content in violation of § 14-227a (a) (2), and evasion of responsibility in the operation of a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 14-224 (b) (3).³

On February 5, 2019, the defendant filed a motion to suppress any evidence that had been unlawfully obtained by the police. The defendant's motion to suppress was broad and sought suppression of "any and all evidence, whether tangible or intangible, and including statements and identifications ... seized or obtained illegally, without a warrant or probable cause, or in violation of the Connecticut or United States constitution." The motion further stated that the defendant "is presently unable to be more specific and detailed in the present motion" and reserved the right to amend and particularize it after defense counsel completed her investigation of the case. A suppression hearing was held by the court, Grossman , J ., on April 25 and 26, 2019. During the hearing, Trooper Ouellette testified regarding her investigation of the accident and her detention of the defendant at the scene. Following the evidentiary portion of the hearing, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence obtained after he was detained by Trooper Ouellette, including the field sobriety test and his blood test results. The defendant argued that Trooper Ouellette's handcuffing of him constituted an illegal detention because she lacked a particular suspicion that he was engaged in any criminal wrongdoing. As a result, in the defendant's view, all of the evidence that followed this illegal detention was tainted fruit of the poisonous tree and was subject to suppression.⁴ In response, the state conceded that Trooper Ouellette had detained the defendant. The state argued, however, that the detention was lawful because Trooper Ouellette had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. The state also contended that Trooper Ouellette's use of handcuffs was reasonable under the circumstances because she had received information that individuals were fleeing the scene of the accident and she was alone and dealing with two suspects at night.

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to suppress. The court granted the motion with respect to evidence of any statements that the defendant had made while he was handcuffed on the ground that Trooper Ouellette was not justified in handcuffing the defendant because there was no indication that such force was necessary. The court denied the motion to suppress with respect to any evidence obtained after the handcuffs were removed, including evidence of the failed field sobriety test and the defendant's blood alcohol content. The court found that it was not unreasonable for Trooper Ouellette to suspect that the accident might have been related to an incident of drunk driving and that she was justified in requesting that the defendant perform field sobriety tests. It further found that evidence of the defendant's blood alcohol content was not subject to suppression for the additional reason that it had been obtained through a valid search warrant that would have been granted regardless of any reference therein to the defendant's performance of field sobriety tests.

Trial began on April 30, 2019. On May 2, 2019, the jury found the defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs and operating a motor vehicle with an elevated blood alcohol content. The jury found him not guilty of evasion of responsibility in the operation of a motor vehicle. On May 9, 2019, the court senten...