Opinion
No. CR05 0041339 S
October 20, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The defendant in this case has filed a motion to suppress certain drugs which the State claims were on his person on April 14, 2005. The issue presented is whether the investigating police officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime was being committed or about to be committed so as to justify an investigatory stop and patdown pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 371 U.S. 1 (1968).
An evidentiary hearing on the defendant's motion took place on October 19, 2005. As a result of the testimony adduced at that hearing the court finds the following facts.
On April 14, 2005 at approximately 7:25 p.m. Officer Dennis O'Connell of the New Haven Police Department was in a marked patrol car with his partner, Officer Rose Turney. Officer O'Connell had some prior experience regarding narcotic investigations as he had been assigned to the street interdiction unit on three occasions.
Officers O'Connell and Turney were assigned to the Hill section of New Haven which is a high crime area involving narcotic activity along with crimes of violence all of which was known to Officer O'Connell.
At the above time while patrolling on Congress Avenue, Officer O'Connell, who was driving, observed a white Jeep Cherokee in the eastbound lane of Congress Avenue which was stopped and blocking traffic. Officer O'Connell pulled up behind the Jeep because it was blocking traffic and in the course of doing so saw the defendant exit the passenger side of the Jeep.
As the defendant exited the Jeep he looked over and saw the patrol car and quickly entered a delicatessen in front of which the Jeep was parked. Drug activity has taken place in this deli to the point where the owner has signed a standing trespassing order. CT Page 13351-fa
Officer O'Connell, thinking that he may know the defendant followed the defendant into the store. The deli has two doors and between them is a ramp which has a solid wall on the right and a wall with a chest high window on the left. Officer O'Connell looked through the window and saw the defendant in the deli. The defendant saw Officer O'Connell through the window and became very nervous and half turned away from Officer O'Connell and stuffed something into the waistband of his pants. Officer O'Connell could not see what the defendant was stuffing into his pants.
As Officer O'Connell approached the defendant in the store he put his hands up and said "I ain't got nothing." At this point the defendant was nervous and shaking.
Concerned that the defendant may have a weapon, Officer O'Connell conducted a patdown of the defendant for his own safety and that of anyone else in the store. Officer O'Connell knew that weapons are associated with those involved in narcotics.
Officer O'Connell concluded a patdown and felt what he believed to be a packet of street level narcotics. He seized items which he recognized to be narcotics. Officer O'Connell, from prior experience knew the feel of packaged narcotics.
Officer O'Connell had had prior dealings with the defendant. In 2003 at Poplar Street and Grand Avenue in Fair Haven he caught him involved in the sale of narcotics. The defendant was not arrested at that time because he furnished the name of his supplier.
It is the defendant's contention that Officer O'Connell did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity on the part of the defendant as required by Terry v. Ohio, supra.
"The federal and state law of search and seizure in this area is well settled. Under the fourth amendment to the United States constitution and article first sec. 7 . . . of our state constitution, a police officer is permitted in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner to detain an individual for investigative purposes if the officer believes, based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual is engaged in criminal activity, even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest . . ." "Reasonable and articulable suspicion is an objective standard that focuses not on the actual state of mind of the police officer, but on whether a reasonable person having the information available to and known by the police, would have that level of suspicion . . . Thus, reasonable and articulable suspicion is . . . based not on the officer's inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch, but on CT Page 13351-fb the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience . . . What constitutes a reasonable and articulable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances . . . The determination of whether a specific set of circumstances provides a police officer with a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity is a question of fact for the trial court and is subject to limited appellate review . . ." State v. Strano, 85 Conn.App. 212, 225-26, cert. denied, 271 Conn. 946 (2004).
The "seizure" in this case took place after the defendant appeared to have stuffed something into his pants and stated "I ain't got nothing." Prior to that time, Officer O'Connell had done nothing to lead the defendant to believe that he was not free to leave the store.
In the court's view, at the time of the "seizure" Officer O'Connell had before him based upon a totality of the circumstances, a basis for a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the defendant was engaging in criminal activity.
This all took place in an area which was known to Officer O'Connell to be a high crime area involving drug activity. Through his prior dealings with the defendant, Officer O'Connell knew that he was involved in drug activity. Officer O'Connell noted that the defendant appeared to be nervous. Upon seeing Officer O'Connell the defendant partially turned from him and stuffed an object into the waistband of his pants. When approached by Officer O'Connell the defendant exclaimed "I ain't got nothing." Nervous and evasive behavior is a factor in determining reasonable suspicion. State v. Tuck, 90 Conn.App. 872, 880 (2005).
Additionally "a limited patdown search for weapons under circumstances in which a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in believing on the basis of specific and articulable facts, that the person with whom he is dealing is armed and dangerous." State v. Mann, 271 Conn. 300, 311 (2004).
In State v. Tuck, supra at p. 881 the court stated:
The record reflects that the court properly found that the officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify a patdown of the defendant to determine if he was armed. This conclusion is supported by the court's findings that the defendant appeared nervous, the Terry stop occurred in a high crime area and the officers had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was trafficking narcotics, as well as the established CT Page 13351-fc nexus between narcotics trafficking and firearms.
These factors are all present in this case and justified a patdown of the defendant. Additionally, if during the course of a patdown, the officer feels an object which is immediately apparent to him to be contraband, he can lawfully seize it. State v. Gregory, 74 Conn.App. 248, 262-63 (2004). That is what occurred in this case.
The court therefore finds that Officer O'Connell had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity and therefore a Terry stop, along with a patdown was justified. The defendant's motion to suppress is therefore denied. CT Page 13351-fd