Opinion
CR130151005 CR130151616T; CR130151615T
09-28-2018
STATE of Connecticut v. Andrew SAMUOLIS
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Fischer, J., Judge
The defendant, Andrew Samuolis, was arrested in June 25, 2013 and charged inter alia with Murder in the First Degree, Assault in the 1st Degree, Attempt to Commit Assault in the First Degree and numerous other charges.
The defendant has moved to suppress evidence seized from his residence at 31 Tunxis Lane, Willimantic, CT, alleging that the police illegally entered the residence on June 25, 2013 in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Article First, Section 7 of the Connecticut Constitution and Practice Book § 41-12 et seq. The defendant further claims that once arrested, the defendant was questioned by the police about the dead body in his home and the circumstances surrounding the death, and, consequently "his statements to the police should be suppressed as they are the direct result of information the police obtained from their illegal entry into the home."
The defendant does not offer any separate argument or analysis of the issues under the Connecticut Constitution.
The state claims that the entry was legal as a community caretaking function under the Emergency Doctrine, and that the defendant’s subsequent misconduct falls under the new crime exception to the Exclusionary Rule. The state also claims that the defendant’s statement was not obtained as a result of the search of the defendant’s house.
A hearing on the motion was held on September 12 and 17, 2018. The State presented the testimony of Mark Curtis, a neighbor of the defendant, Willimantic Police Officers Amy Hartman, Kevin Winkler, Elvin Salas, Michael Suplicki, and Roberto Rosado, and the testimony of Connecticut State Police detective Adam Pillsbury. The defendant presented the testimony of Willimantic Police Officer Lucien Frechette.
For the reasons that follow, the motion to suppress is denied.
RELEVANT LAW
"It is axiomatic that the police may not enter a home without a warrant or consent, unless one of the established exceptions to the warrant requirement is met." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ryder, 301 Conn. 810, 821, 23 A.3d 694 (2011).
"The emergency doctrine allows law enforcement officers to enter and secure premises without a warrant when they are responding to a perceived emergency ... The emergency doctrine is based on and justified by the fact that, in addition to their role as criminal investigators and law enforcers, the police also function as community caretakers ..." State v. DeMarco, 311 Conn. 510, 533 (2014) (internal citations omitted).
"[T]he fourth amendment does not bar police officers, when responding to emergencies, from making warrantless entries into premises and warrantless searches when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid ... The extent of the search is limited, involving a prompt warrantless search of the area to see if there are other victims or if a killer is still on the premises ... Such a search is strictly circumscribed by the emergency which serves to justify it ... and cannot be used to support a general exploratory search." State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 691, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992).
Under the emergency doctrine "the actors making the search must have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that the intrusion is reasonably necessary to alleviate the threat ... The police, in order to avail themselves of this exception must have valid reasons for the belief that an emergency exists, a belief that must be grounded in empirical facts rather than subjective feelings ... The test is not whether the officers actually believed that an emergency existed, but whether a reasonable officer would have believed that such an emergency existed." State v. Fausel, 295 Conn. 785, 795, 993 A.2d 455 (2010).
Courts have held that an objective reason to believe that a dead body is in a residence is sufficient to justify an entry under the emergency doctrine. See United States v. Stafford, 416 F.3d 1068, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (Odor of dead body). See also, State v. York, 159 Wisc.2d 215, 222-23 (CT App. 1990) (odor of dead body and reasonable belief that another living being might need assistance, i.e. a "spark of life" may remain, justifies a warrantless entry).
Even if police entry into a premise is not lawful, "evidence is not to be excluded if the connection between the illegal police conduct and the discovery and seizure of the evidence is so attenuated as to dissipate the taint ..." State v. Brocuglio, 264 Conn. 778, 787 (2003) quoting, Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 805, 104 S.Ct. 380, 82 L.Ed. 599 (1984). A new crime committed in response to an unlawful policy entry into a residence is a sufficient attenuation so as to be an exception to the exclusionary rule. Brocuglio supra at 790. Our Supreme Court adopted this rule in Brocuglio primarily because "the gains from extending the [exclusionary] rule to exclude fresh evidence of crimes is small, and the costs high. If the rule were applied rigorously, suspects could shoot the arresting officers without risk of prosecution. An exclusionary rule that does little to reduce the number of unlawful seizures, and much to increase the volume of crime, cannot be justified." United States v. Pryor, 32 F.3d [1192], 1196 [ (7th Cir. 1994¢ ) ]. State v. Brocuglio, supra at 789.
RELEVANT FACTS FOUND PERTAINING TO THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS
The court makes the following findings of fact.
As an initial matter, the court finds all of the witnesses to be credible and their testimony is not in conflict to any substantive degree.
On June 21, 2013, Willimantic Police Officer Hartman was dispatched to 31 Tunxis Lane to check on the well-being of John Samuolis, the owner of the property. Earlier in the day, Willimantic Police Corporal Salas had been on routine patrol on the street and hailed by Mark Curtis, who lived next door to Samuolis. Curtis related that he and the neighbors across the street, the Lebiszczaks, were concerned that they had not seen John Samuolis, who was referred to as the "old man," in a long time. All officers testified that such "well-being" calls are not uncommon but there are no formal procedures in place regarding them.
At about 7:30 that evening, both Salas and Hartman arrived separately at Tunxis Lane, which is a split-level style home in a residential neighborhood described as "quiet." Neither officer had activated their lights or sirens in coming to the scene. It was still light out and the weather was dry. A car registered to John Samuolis was parked in the driveway. Some of the windows of the house were open and part of the lawn had been mowed recently. There was no visible accumulation of trash or mail. The officers walked around the house and knocked on the doors which were locked. They noticed a cat in the window. Salas called into the open windows announcing their presence, but they received no response. They concluded that no one was home.
The officers then spoke with Curtis and the Lebiszczaks and learned that the house was occupied by John Samuolis and his adult son, Andrew, and that the mother of Andrew Samuolis was deceased. The neighbors also noted that Andrew Samuolis was "a little weird" and "not all there" and that he might be in the house. The officers asked the neighbors to keep an eye on the house, noting that some activity might be seen after it got dark and the lights went on. The officers intended to return later that evening to recheck the house but had to attend to other duties during their shifts which prevented them from returning.
On June 25, 2013, at 10:45, Curtis called the Willimantic Police and asked them to recheck the Samuolis house because there was now chicken wire covering the lower rear windows of the house and there were a huge number of flies massing at an upper rear window. Willimantic Police Officer Winkler was dispatched to the scene and Corporal Salas responded as back up when he recognized the address being broadcast. Both officers were in full uniform and operating marked police cruisers, and neither officer used their lights or sirens on their way to 31 Tunxis Lane. Upon arrival, the officers parked in the front of the house. Since Salas’ earlier visit, the weather had been extremely hot and dry.
Both officers exited their vehicles and walked around the house. They found the doors were all locked and all the curtains were drawn. The front upper windows of the house were open. Salas saw the car was still parked in the same place and ran the plate. The registration came back to 31 Tunxis Lane. Salas did not check to see if any other vehicles were registered to the house.
The officers also had a short discussion with Curtis who told them that Andrew Samuolis had put the chicken wire up after the police had left the home on the previous well-being check. Curtis also pointed out the mass of flies at the upper rear window. Salas told Winkler that neither the wire nor the flies had been there earlier. Salas, based on his experience, thought that the sheer number of flies indicated that there might be a dead body in the house.
Curtis offered the use of a ladder and Winkler put it in place and climbed up to look into the upper rear window. The window was propped open slightly by an air freshener. There were flies everywhere, but no odor. Winkler looked in but was unable to see anything. The officers did not have a phone number for the house, nor did they ask Curtis for any contact information. The officers were now concerned for the well-being of the "old man," John Samuolis, and his son, Andrew Samuolis, due to his possible "state of mind."
Salas and Winkler thought that an entry into the house might be necessary so they called their supervisor, Sergeant Rosado, and related what they had found. Rosado came to the scene without using his lights and siren and parked his marked cruiser between the other two police vehicles. After being apprised of the current situation and what had transpired on June 21st, Rosado concluded that there was a dead body in the house and that they would have to make an entry into the house in order to search for it and anyone else who might need help. The court finds that all of these officers subjectively believed this and did not believe that criminal activity had occurred. Rosado wanted to call the fire department in order to get a ladder, but after being informed about the borrowed ladder, Rosado had Winkler move it to the front upper windows to gain entry there. The officers testified, that they would have handled the issues differently if they were not in community care taking mode. This court specifically credits that testimony.
Winkler then ascended the ladder, cut the window screen and entered the living room part of the house. He told Rosado and Salas that he would go down and open the front door and let them in. The room and stairwell were dark. At or near the top of the stairs, Winkler heard a noise from the basement. Winkler stopped and announced his presence as a police officer and waited, but he heard nothing in response. Winkler then went down the stairs to the front door, which was barred by a heavy metal bar. He removed the bar and tossed it down the stairs toward the basement, where it landed noisily. Rosado and Salas were waiting outside and heard the loud clunk. Winkler then opened the front door, and while keeping an eye on the basement, he told Rosado and Salas that he had heard a noise.
At that point, Winkler saw a rifle barrel stick out around the wall at the bottom of the basement stairs carried by a male who was dressed "for battle" in camouflaged clothing and a ballistic style vest. The male aimed and fired the weapon at Winkler, hitting him in the elbow. This male was later identified as the defendant, Andrew Samuolis.
After being wounded, Winkler ran back up the stairs, turned right and took shelter in the front bedroom. Rosado and Salas sought cover outside the residence. Winkler was able to escape the house by pushing through one of the upstairs bedroom windows and falling to the ground, leaving a blood stain on the front of the house. Winkler then joined Rosado behind Rosado’s cruiser where Rosado tried to aid Winkler and call into Dispatch and keep an eye on the house.
Salas had sought shelter behind a large pine on the Curtis property line, where he drew his weapon. Salas saw the man in camouflage, and carrying the rifle, approach him. Salas fired at the man, later identified as the defendant, Andrew Samuolis. The shot missed and Salas watched the defendant run to the backyard of the house and disappear into the woods.
After Sergeant Rosado radioed in to police dispatch and reported what had occurred, other officers arrived to assist. Willimantic Detective Frechette was at a training session when he received a text that a Willimantic officer had been shot. Also at that session was Willimantic officer Hartman, who had been at the address several days earlier. They drove together to the Willimantic Police Department.
When Frechette got to the police department, he gathered information about the residence and the family, including a phone number. Frechette donned protective gear and went to the command center which had been set up a short distance from 31 Tunxis Lane. Frechette asked for and received permission to call the phone number he had, and then he called it from the command center. No one answered the call, and he left a message on a recording device.
The matter was now a crime area and they had set up a perimeter. At about 12:53, the state police reported that they had captured the defendant and he was in custody.
As soon as Frechette and the other officers learned that the defendant was in custody, he and other Willimantic Special Operations Group (SWAT) entered the house to secure it and search for any injured parties. This was about 1:02 p.m. Frechette observed that the door to the rear second floor bedroom was sealed with tape and plastic and a rope. Suspecting it might be booby-trapped, Frechette ordered everyone out of the house, and secured it so no one else could enter.
Once outside, Frechette went up a ladder to the rear second floor window and raised the window enough to lean inside. The flies were still thick. Frechette saw a badly decomposed body on the floor directly below the window. He also visually inspected the room for booby-traps, but found nothing. No physical evidence was seized during this protective sweep. The Connecticut State Police then procured a search warrant which was executed later and physical evidence was seized.
Connecticut State Police Detective Adam Pillsbury had been dispatched to Willimantic upon report that an officer had been shot. Pillsbury, a member of the SWAT team was in casual clothes, but armed. Other SWAT members who were present were donning their tactical gear when a call came in that the defendant had been sighted near Route 32, some distance from 31 Tunxis Lane. Pillsbury never went to 31 Tunxis Lane, instead Pillsbury joined two other officers in driving to the area of Route 32.
They spotted the defendant. They exited their cruisers and Pillsbury heard a shot. One of the other officers returned fire and when they moved to block the defendant’s escape, the defendant went back into the woods. Eventually more SWAT arrived and minutes later the defendant was in custody. The defendant was arrested for shooting at an officer.
The defendant was searched down to his underwear. He had some bumps and scratches. An ambulance arrived. Pillsbury took custody of the defendant and the defendant was placed in the ambulance, joined by Pillsbury and a paramedic. The defendant was sobbing "I’m sorry." After the defendant calmed down, Pillsbury read him his rights and the defendant indicated that he understood them. The defendant did not ask for an attorney or stop talking. Pillsbury made no threats or promises to the defendant and he kept his weapon holstered.
At the outset, Pillsbury had no idea why the Willimantic officers had been at 32 Tunxis Lane and was concerned about where the defendant’s weapon was. At this time, Pillsbury did not know that John Samuolis was dead or that his body was still in the house. The defendant told Pillsbury that the police had come to the house to check on his father. The defendant stated that he had shot his father several months before. He further stated that the body was still in the house, and it had started to smell so he sealed the room. Pillsbury then called his superiors to tell them that there was a body in the house.
The defendant arrived at the hospital at about 1:10 p.m. and was treated for about two hours. At no time did the defendant ask for an attorney or stop talking.
After the hospital treated the defendant, he was taken to Troop K headquarters, where he was processed, signed a standard notice of rights form and did a video interview, and was searched for Gun Shot Residue.
The defendant also disclosed that he had mental health issues, but Pillsbury thought that he looked and acted fairly normal. During this process, if Pillsbury got something wrong, the defendant corrected him. The defendant also stated that he had been in the house on Friday when the police first came, and he had gotten his gun ready to respond if they had entered the house. The defendant was remorseful through-out in relating what he had done and he never changed his story.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The court finds the Police entry of the house under the emergency doctrine to be objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
The present case began, not as a police investigation but at the request of one neighbor concerning the welfare of another neighbor. The ensuing first welfare check was circumscribed: a check of the doors and perimeter of the house, and knocking on the doors and calling into the windows, to which there was no response. Given that the police were immediately present and attempting to reach anyone inside the house, this court does not and cannot find that the police were required to also obtain a phone number to call the house or residents. Under these circumstances, a phone call was not necessary. See DeMarco, supra at 44.
Similarly, the second welfare check began at the behest of the neighbor, not the police. At this point, the police were faced with a sudden mass infestation of flies which, due to the prior experience of the police, indicated the presence of a dead body. They were also aware that the "old man" continued to be missing and there was concern for the son’s state of mind. Moreover, there was the inexplicable covering of the window with chicken wire, which would be bizarre by any standard. Under all the circumstances, it was objectively reasonable for the police to enter the house under the emergency doctrine to look for persons in need of assistance. The fact that John Samuolis was already dead does not refute such a finding because the police did not know there was a dead body or even whose body it might be. Thus, the police were still concerned for the safety of either an "old man" or his son who had "mental issues." Again, it would be pure speculation to hold that a phone call was necessary before entering the premises.
The defendant’s claim that the call to Rosado shows that this was not an emergency because it led to more delay, does not lead this Court to find the entry unreasonable or pretextual. The delay was minimal, and it was certainly reasonable for the officers to consult a superior before making a warrantless entry. Indeed, the riskiness of the entry itself supports the conclusion that the police were acting in an emergency situation rather than in response to a crime situation. Thus, this was not a pretextual attempt to engage in a general investigation.
However, even if the entry into the house was unlawful, this court also finds that the defendant’s alleged shooting of Officer Winkler and at the state police was a sufficient attenuation of any unlawfulness in the entry. Simply put, the defendant had no right to shoot an officer in response to this entry. See Brocuglio, supra at 788-90. Accordingly, the seizure of the evidence thereafter was lawful.
Finally, the defendant’s claim that his statements must be suppressed because it was tainted as "a direct result of information the police obtained from their illegal entry into the home" fails because it lacks a factual basis: (1) the police taking the defendant’s statement simply had no such information at the time, and moreover, (2) their entry was legal in any event.
For all the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to suppress is denied.