State v. Griffiths

State of Connecticut v. Joel Griffiths

No. LLICR150148632T

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Litchfield, Litchfield

April 25, 2017

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

RULING RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REOPEN THE HEARING ON THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM HIS PERSON AND FROM A MOTOR VEHICLE

John A. Danaher III, J.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 28, 2016, the defendant, Joel Griffiths, filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized from his person and from a motor vehicle he was operating on September 1, 2015. He based his motion on his claim that a warrantless search was carried out in the absence of probable cause that he was involved in criminal activity at the time of the seizure. The defendant also argued that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the stop, search and seizure of the defendant's person and vehicle. The parties were heard on the defendant's motion to suppress on November 28, 2016. That hearing was continued to, and completed on, December 5, 2016. After the hearing, on December 14, 2016, the state filed its post-hearing memorandum of law.

The defendant filed a motion dated December 20, 2016, seeking to reopen the suppression hearing in order to introduce additional evidence regarding the defendant's standing to move to suppress evidence seized from the motor vehicle that he was operating on September 1, 2015. He filed a supplemental memorandum on the issue of standing on December 28, 2017. The state filed a memorandum on December 29, 2016 opposing the motion to reopen the hearing. The court, in response to the defendant's motion to reopen the hearing issued an order on February 7, 2017, directing the state to clarify, in a supplemental filing, whether it had a good faith basis for its contention that Virginia Griffiths, who had rented the car operated by the defendant at the time of the motor vehicle stop, was not, in fact, the defendant's wife at that time. The court also invited both parties to address a post-hearing decision by the Appellate Court, State v. Brito, 170 Conn.App. 269, 154 A.3d 535, cert. denied, 324 Conn. 925 (2017).

On February 24, 2017, the state filed an additional memorandum regarding its claim that the defendant lacked standing to move to suppress evidence seized on September 1, 2015 and also addressed its view regarding the application of Brito to the issues before this court.

II. FACTUAL HISTORY

At the November 28, 2016, hearing, the state introduced testimony by Robert Sweeney, a manager at Avis Rent a Car in Windsor Locks, Connecticut. Sweeney testified that on July 20, 2015, Virginia Griffiths rented a red Ford Taurus from Avis. Although Ms. Griffiths did not identify any additional drivers when she rented the vehicle, it is Avis's policy that the spouse of the person renting a car is authorized to operate the motor vehicle. The car was originally due to be returned to Avis on July 27, 2015. The rental arrangement was modified to require that the car be returned to Avis by August 20, 2015, but the car was not returned until after the motor vehicle stop on September 1, 2015. Thus, Sweeney testified, any use of the car after August 20, 2015 was considered by Avis to be " unauthorized use" either by the authorized user who rented the car or the spouse of the authorized user. The court credits the foregoing testimony by Sweeney.

The state then called Connecticut State Trooper Christopher Sorrell, who testified that he has been a trooper for seventeen years. He was previously assigned to the Western District Major Crimes squad and has had numerous prior investigations involving narcotics and marijuana.

On September 1, 2015, Sorrell was parked on Route 8, northbound, in Torrington when, at approximately 10:33 p.m., the defendant, operating the Avis rental car, passed Sorrell at a high rate of speed. Sorrell confirmed by laser that the car was traveling 81 miles per hour in a 65 miles per hour zone. Sorrell then drove in pursuit of the car. When he approached the car from behind, Sorrell turned on his emergency lights. The car did not stop, and thereafter Sorrell activated his siren. The car still continued for a short period of time before finally pulling over on the far right shoulder of the breakdown lane. Sorrell testified that it took approximately thirty seconds for the defendant to respond to the trooper's emergency lights and sirens, a period of time that, Sorrell testified, was about twice as long as it normally takes a driver to respond when the trooper activates emergency lights and sirens indicating to the driver ahead of the trooper that the driver should pull over. Although the defendant activated his right turn signal before pulling over, he did not turn that signal off after he had stopped.

Sorrell testified that the foregoing circumstances, alone, were indicators to him that the driver was either under the influence, seeking to conceal something, or was delaying the stop for some other reason. Sorrell also noted that when the defendant pulled off the road, he pulled so far to the right that Sorrell believed the defendant was attempting to force Sorrell to approach the car from the driver's side. Such an action, according to Sorrell, can be for the purpose of attempting to hide something within the car. Indeed, when Sorrell managed to approach from the passenger side, despite the manner in which the defendant had stopped, Sorrell observed the defendant completely focused on the driver's side window. Sorrell had to knock on the passenger window to gain the defendant's attention, and when he did so, it was noteworthy to Sorrell that the defendant only lowered the window by about four inches. Sorrell directed the defendant to lower the window all the way, and when that happened, Sorrell detected the smell of marijuana. When told he had been traveling 81 miles per hour, the defendant stated that he thought he was traveling " about 68."

Sorrell, when he learned that the vehicle was a rental vehicle, requested the rental agreement. When the trooper asked for the rental agreement, the defendant began to raise the center console, which had a bandana lying on top of it. The defendant, however, quickly closed the console without even looking in it. Sorrell testified that the defendant's action made the trooper suspect that the defendant was concealing something in the console. The trooper also observed a backpack in the rear passenger seat, zipped up. He also observed a bottle with liquid in it in a pocket on the back of the passenger seat. The defendant handed the trooper the rental paperwork that he had with him, but indicated that he did not have the rental contract.^[1]

The trooper told the defendant to remain in the car and returned to his own car to run the defendant's license. When he was walking away from the defendant's car, the trooper looked back and observed excessive furtive movement within the car. Specifically, the trooper observed the defendant reaching over towards the passenger side in the front and rear of the vehicle. That conduct further indicated to the trooper that the defendant was attempting to conceal something. The dashboard camera recording shows the trooper observing the defendant's car as the trooper walked away from it.

The trooper, upon running a records check, learned that the defendant had a history of narcotics and firearms offenses, including a conviction for possession of an assault weapon and arrests for possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle. He also had disorderly conduct and assault convictions. Sorrell, taking into account the actions leading up to his encounter with the defendant, his observations when he first spoke with the defendant, the many furtive movements he observed, and the information regarding the defendant's criminal history that he acquired, concluded that he had reason to fear for his safety. At that point, he called for backup. He stated, in a call to dispatch, that the delayed stop by the defendant, the bandana covering the console, " and stuff like that, " the evidence of marijuana, and the defendant's criminal history all led Sorrell to decide that he should direct the defendant to step out of the car.

With backup on the way, Sorrell re-approached the defendant's car. At that point, he observed that the bandana that Sorrell initially saw on the center console was now on the rear passenger seat floor; the backpack that had been on the floor in the back had been moved to a rear seat and was unzipped and open; and the bottle with liquid that had been in the pocket on the back of the passenger seat was no longer visible. All of the foregoing developments generated a safety concern in Sorrell's mind.^[2] The windows to the car were now rolled down and the defendant was smoking. Sorrell concluded that the latter actions were intended to mask the odor that had been in the car.

When the backup trooper arrived, Trooper Holcomb (" Holcomb"), Sorrell briefed Holcomb on the situation^[3] and then again approached the defendant's car. Sorrell then asked the defendant to step out of the car. The defendant questioned the trooper repeatedly as to why he was being asked to step out of the car. When the trooper asked the defendant to spread his feet Sorrell had to make that request three times. When Sorrell told the defendant that he had smelled marijuana in the car, the defendant attributed the odor to having hit a skunk. The trooper asked the defendant if there were drugs in the car. The defendant replied, " absolutely not." The trooper asked, " cocaine? Heroin?" The defendant replied, " absolutely not, are you kidding me? No!" The trooper also asked, " and there's no weapons?" The defendant responded, " no, no." Shortly...