Appellate Court Refusals Are The Worst

Though I did succeed in getting two convictions overturned in recent months, yesterday the Connecticut Appellate Court didn't buy what I had to say and affirmed a conviction in State v. Payne. The majority opinion can be found here and the concurring opinion is here.

My argument focused on the trial court's denial of my client's motion to suppress. Quick facts: there was a smash-and-grab burglary in the middle of a the night at a liquor store in the Fair Haven section of New Haven. My client's car was spotted in the area. A brief, yet high speed (for that area) pursuit occurred, ending in my client's car colliding with the front of a house.

The police searched the car AFTER my client was already arrested. Thusly, I argued, none of the exigent circumstances that permit warrantless searches applied any longer. Further, I argued, no warrant exception applied.

One exception was "abandonment." Courts are somewhat divided over whether or not you maintain a privacy interest in property that you don't keep within your control.

The court spoke around this issue in this case, however. The majority opinion said that the record was not fit for review largely because the trial court opinion was unclear. The court said, in essence, that I had the obligation to make clear that opinion.

Trouble is, I didn't think the opinion was unclear. To me, the trial court answered the questions it was required to answer, though it was not a model of clarity. My concern was that if I tried to clear it up, any helpful points within that decision would have been picked up on by the trial court and ended my argument.

Truth be told, I cannot stand when appellate courts anywhere assert form over substance and use a technical reason to avoid opining upon an issue. Why not just give a defendant or an aggrieved person their day to be heard and ruled upon?

Why look for any possible technical reason to avoid answering the question really being asked?