*********************************************** 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. BOBBY GRIFFIN (SC 20439) Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js. Syllabus Convicted of the crimes of murder, criminal attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a firearm in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court. Several days after the shooting, a confidential informant told a detective, P, about a conver- sation he had with the defendant in which the defendant admitted to murdering the victim and wanting to sell the rifle that he had used to do so. At P’s urging, the informant went to the defendant’s residence to place a hold on the rifle. During the ride back to the police station, the informant told P that he saw a rifle and ammunition in the defendant’s bedroom. P immediately began preparing an application for a search warrant while the police surveilled the defendant’s residence. The police became concerned that their presence had been noticed and entered the defendant’s residence in order to secure it until the warrant was obtained. During a protective sweep, an officer entered the defendant’s attic and saw the rifle in plain view. The search warrant application was then approved on the basis of P’s affidavit, in which P averred, inter alia, that the police were relying on an informant whose ‘‘information has been proven true and reliable.’’ Thereafter, the defendant was detained and, in the early morning, brought to the station, where he waived his Miranda rights. He was then interviewed by two detectives, N and Z, for more than three hours, during which he confessed to the murder. Prior to trial, the defendant filed motions to suppress the rifle and other evidence discovered during the search of his residence and the statements he had made to N and …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals