*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. DEMETRICE L. LEWIS (SC 20002) Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins and Ecker, Js. Syllabus The defendant, who was convicted, on a conditional plea of nolo contendere, of carrying a pistol without a permit and criminal possession of a pistol or revolver, appealed from the judgment of conviction, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress a gun found on his person during a patdown search by a police officer. The defendant contended that the officer’s seizure of him and patdown were unlawful under the federal and state constitutions. A woman, V, had called 911 at approximately 4 a.m. to report a domestic assault. V indi- cated to the 911 dispatcher that, approximately fifteen minutes before- hand, a black man identified as ‘‘O,’’ whom V had been ‘‘dealing with,’’ broke a window in her apartment and choked her. V noted to the dispatcher that O was wearing black clothing and a fitted orange and grey hat. V further explained that O had left her apartment but that she could hear him talking outside of her open window and, thus, believed that he was still nearby. V also told the dispatcher that O did not have any weapons. Approximately five minutes after the 911 call, police officers were dispatched to respond to the scene. The officers were informed that it was a domestic violence incident involving choking and that the perpetrator was likely in the area of the apartment, and they were given a description of O and what he was wearing. The officer who ultimately conducted the patdown search had been on patrol nearby in his police vehicle when he responded to the call. Approximately one minute after the dispatch call, the officer observed the defendant standing alone in a parking lot area that was in close proximity to the apartment, talking ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals