STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. SERGIO J. CORREA, SC 20728

Judicial District of New London

Criminal; Whether Warrantless Seizure of Cell Phone Was Justified under Exigent Circumstances Exception; Whether Search Warrant for Entire Contents of Cell Phone Violated State and Federal Constitutions. On December 20, 2017, the police responded to a call regarding a house fire and discovered the remains of Ken and Janet Lindquist at their Griswold home. Their adult son, Matthew Lindquist (Matt), however, could not be located. The police learned that there was tension between Matt and his parents due to his heroin addiction. Because Matt was a potential suspect, the police obtained his real-time location data from his cell phone service provider, which revealed that his phone was in the vicinity of an apartment complex on Donald Street in Hartford. The data also revealed that the phone last had contact with a phone number associated with TextNow—a mobile application that transmits calls and texts via a number unique to the application and distinct from a person's actual cell phone number—belonging to the defendant. The police subsequently learned that the defendant had a criminal record, including a conviction for arson, and lived on Donald Street. During a noncustodial interview with police on December 28, 2017, the defendant disclosed his email address and phone number but omitted his TextNow number and denied having any other email addresses, including the one that was associated with his TextNow account. Upon being told that Matt had killed two people and that the police were aware that the defendant knew Matt, the defendant asked for a lawyer and grabbed his cell phone from the table. When told that the police intended to seize the phone before he left, the defendant reiterated his request for a lawyer and locked the phone. After Matt was discovered dead, the defendant was charged with several offenses in connection with the arson and the Lindquists' deaths. Pursuant to a June 11, 2018 search warrant, law enforcement then unlocked the defendant's phone and extracted its contents. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress the seizure of his phone, and the electronic evidence subsequently extracted therefrom pursuant to the June, 2018 warrant. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion to suppress the seizure of the phone, finding that there had been probable cause to believe that it contained evidence of the alleged crimes because, amongst other things, the defendant and Matt had communicated just before the crimes were committed. The court also found that exigent circumstances had existed, noting that during the interview, the defendant made "objectively suspicious hand movements" while holding his phone and the defendant's suspicious behavior during his interview with police indicated that he might destroy evidence on his phone. The court agreed, however, that the June, 2018 warrant was overbroad and suppressed all data other than that relating to the period between December 5 and December 28, 2017. Following a trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of, inter alia, murder with special circumstances, and he was sentenced to life without the possibility of release. The defendant directly appeals from the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in concluding that exigent circumstances had justified the warrantless seizure of his phone. He also claims that the trial court erred in failing to suppress all of the data extracted from the phone because the warrant was so overly broad and lacking in particularity that it violated his rights under the fourth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution.