State v. Sayles

STATE of Connecticut v. Dwayne SAYLES

No. NNHCR150157364T

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

April 20, 2018

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

April 23, 2018

OPINION

Brian T. Fischer, Judge

On January 18, 2018 the defendant, Dwayne Sayles filed a Motion to Suppress which was identified by his attorney as a Franks Motion. The defendant on January 12, 2018 filed a Motion to Suppress tangible evidence.

On January 24, 2018 the court heard testimony from the following witnesses concerning these motions:

1) Detective Christopher Perrone, New Haven Police Department.

2) Mary Sayles.

Numerous exhibits were offered at the hearing including the video of Detective Perrone and the defendant Dwayne Sayles at the New Haven Police Department on April 16, 2015. Also as exhibits were the search warrants addressed in this memorandum.

On January 24, 2018, before commencing evidence in the trial the court made an oral decision on the record denying the defendants motions. This written memorandum corresponds and supplements this court’s January 24, 2018 ruling.

In reaching its conclusion, the court has fairly and impartially considered all of the evidence presented, evaluated the credibility of the witnesses, assessed the weight, if any, to be given specific evidence and measured the probative force of conflicting evidence, reviewed all evidence and relevant case law, and has drawn inferences from the evidence of facts established by the evidence it deems reasonable and logical.

For the reasons set forth below, the motions are hereby denied.

The court finds the following facts to be relevant and credible.

Detective Perrone has been assigned to the homicide unit as a detective since 2014.

On April 6, 2015 at approximately 7:30 p.m. two masked men entered the Pay Rite gas station on Forbes Avenue in New Haven. The men proceeded to rob the store clerk, shooting and killing him. After the shooting they fled the scene in a car driven by Leighton Vanderbergh, who was friends with both robbers.

On April 14, 2015 Vanderbergh gave a recorded statement to the New Haven Police. Vanderbergh indicated he gave a ride to the two masked men who committed the robbery and subsequent murder. He identified the men as Dwayne Sayles and Jamal Sumler.

In connection with Vanderbergh’s statement and other police investigations a search and seizure warrant was approved by a Superior Court judge for the defendant’s residence on April 15, 2015. The search warrant was carried out in the early morning hours of April 15, 2015. A ski mask and gloves were seized pursuant to the warrant. (Defendant’s Exhibit 1.)

Later in the day on April 15, 2015 the defendant called the police and agreed to go to the New Haven Police Department to meet with Detective Perrone and Detective Zaweski. The defendant came to the police station with his mother, Mary Sayles. The defendant had his cell phone with him. Prior to entering the interview room the defendant gave his mother his cell phone. The interview with the defendant was video taped, (State’s Exhibit A), Mary Sales was outside the interview room sitting on a bench.

On the night of the robbery defendant was using his cell phone before and after the shooting. He also posted on Facebook.

The defendant was free to go at anytime when he was at the police station. He was not under arrest. The defendant asked to speak to an attorney within a few minutes of the interview and the interview ended.

Detective Perrone intended to take the defendant’s cell phone as there was evidence it was used prior to and subsequent to the murder of the store clerk.

Detective Perrone had probable cause to seize the defendant’s cell phone. Detective Perrone was concerned about damage to the cell phone and/or data being erased.

When the interview with the defendant ended Detective Perrone inquired in the hallway of Mary Sayles if she had her son’s cell phone (the defendant). She said yes and handed it to Detective Perrone. Mary Sayles also gave the detective the cell number to the phone.

Mary Sayles voluntarily gave the phone to the detective. There was no threats made to Mary Sales for the phone.

The defendant and his mother than left the New Haven Police Department voluntarily.

Detective Perrone then applied for a search warrant for contents of the phone, which was approved by a Superior Court judge on April 16, 2015. (State’s Exhibit B.)

When Detective Perrone leaves the interview room he goes down the hallway to talk to Mary Sayles. Ms. Sayles has the defendant’s phone in her hand. Detective Perrone asks for the phone and Ms. Sayles gives him the phone. This interaction between Mary Sayles and the detective lasted approximately 30 seconds. Mary Sayles also gave the detective the defendant’s cell number.

The defendant and Mary Sayles then leave the police station.

Legal Analysis

Motion dated January 18, 2018

The defendant argues Detective Perrone’s affidavit requesting the seizing of defendant’s cell phone prepared on April 16, 2015 included a misrepresentation material to the seizing. Specifically in paragraph 18 of said affidavit (State Exhibit B) it states: " prior to Sayles leaving, his mother handed to detectives a cellular telephone she said belonged to Dwayne and provided (203) 901-8399 as the phone number."

The defendant argues in Detective Perrone’s supplemental report date June 23, 2015 he stated " I then seized as evidence Sayles silver iPhone from Sayles’ mother Mary Sayles who provided the telephone number (203) 901-8399 for her son’s phone.

There is a presumption of validity with respect to a supporting affidavit for a search warrant.

To prevail on this motion the defendant must make a showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth was included by the affiant in the affidavit and that the allegedly false statement is necessary to a finding of probable cause. State v Bergin, 214 Conn. 657, 666 (1990).

The defendant falls far short of his burden on this motion. This court finds that Detective Perrone asked for the cell phone and Mary Sayles handed the cell phone to him. This was done in a consensual manner.

The fact that Detective Perrone in his report dated June 23, 2015 states he " seized" the phone from Mary Sayles is just a difference in semantics.

At no time did Detective Perrone threaten Mary Sayles for the cell phone. Mary Sayles was friendly and amicable. The entire transaction lasted less than thirty seconds. The video in evidence supports this time frame.

The court finds Detective Perrone in Paragraph 18 of State’s Exhibit B did not make a false statement knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth when he indicated to the magistrate that Mary Sayles handed him the cell phone.

Motion Dated January 12, 2018

The defendant argues the taking of the defendant’s cell phone from Mary Sayles without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search and seizure.

The state argues the police had probable cause to seize the cell phone in order to prevent destruction of its’ contents while a warrant was being secured.

The court denies the motion as the police were justified in seizing the phone under the facts of this case and the law of exigent circumstances and inevitable discovery.

Under both the federal and the state constitutions, members of the public are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures by the police. U.S. Const., amend. IV; Conn. Const art. I, § 7. A search or seizure is presumed to be unreasonable when it is conducted without a warrant issued upon probable cause, subject to a few well defined exceptions. State v. Lewis, 173 Conn.App. 827, 838 162 A.3d 775, cert. granted, 327 Conn. 925, 171 A.3d 58 (2017). In those instances, " [t]he state bears the burden of proving that an exception to the warrant requirement applied." State v. Eady, 249 Conn 431, 436, 733 A.2d 112, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030, 120 S.Ct. 551, 145 L.Ed.2d 428 (1999).

" [P]robable cause is a dynamic concept, and [courts] have recognized that a law enforcement officer’s experience and training may permit the officer to discern probable cause from facts and circumstances where a layman might not." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) United States v. Babilonia, 854 F.3d 163, 178, cert. Denied, 138 S.Ct. 438, 199 L.Ed.2d 323 (2d Cir. 2017). " In evaluating probable cause for a warrantless search, the court may consider all of the legally obtained facts available to a police officer, and all of the reasonable inferences that might be drawn therefrom in light of the officer’s training and experience." State v. Leary, 51 Conn.App. 497, 501, 725 A.2d 328 (1999).

Though difficult to define, " [P]robable cause means more than mere suspicion. There must be facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he has trustworthy information, sufficient to justify the belief of a reasonable person that an offense has been or is being committed." State v. Gant, 231 Conn. 43, 63, 646 A.2d 835 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1038, 115 S.Ct. 1404, 131 L.Ed.2d 291 (1995).

In the present case, Detective Perrone testified that " through [his] training and experience [he knows] that cell phones are often used either before a crime or after, co-conspirators will talk on the phones, they’ll text each other, they’ll post things on Facebook about the crime. The phones can contain GPS coordinates on where that phone was at the time of the crime. They contain Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, all of those types of things." Detective Perrone further testified that he had information that the defendant had a Facebook account; that the defendant used that Facebook account to communicate with one...