Connecticut Criminal Lawyer Blog

Terrell Kimble appealed from the judgment of conviction following his conditional plea of nolo contendere to criminal possession of a firearm and interfering with an officer among other charges. The plea followed the court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The state presented the following evidence.

A Hartford police officer was directed by dispatch to investigate a report that two black males in an automobile with New York marker plates. He did not observe them doing anything or see anyone approach the vehicle. He approached the vehicle and asked the occupants if they lived there and for identification. The driver had no identification and gave to different birth dates. A second officer arrived on the scene. The passenger, Terrell Kimble, exited the automobile and ran. The officers pursued and arrested him for criminal trespass and interfering with an officer. A third officer arrived at the scene and arrested the driver.

The officers began a search of the vehicle. A handgun was plainly visible lying on the floorboard near the passenger door that was left open. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the gun reasoning that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the validity of the search as a mere passenger and because the investigative stop was reasonable and the weapon seized was in plain view. The Appellate Court affirmed concluding that no search in connection with the seizure of the gun occurred. If a search occurred, the defendant lacked standing to challenge its legality.

Further, it could not reasonably be concluded that the defendant manifested any subjective expectation of privacy in the area of the automobile where the gun was seized. The defendant failed to demonstrate that his seizure was unlawful and could not demonstrate that the gun was the fruit of police illegality related to that seizure. The defendant was not seized until the officer pursued him following his flight from the car. The seizure was supported by a reasonable and articulable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal conduct.

State v. Kimble
Connecticut Appellate Court
(AC 26992)
Connecticut Law Tribune