Melissa L. Streeto, senior assistant state's attorney, in opposition. The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 139 Conn.App. 367, 55 A.3d 805, is denied.

The petitioner only challenges the effectiveness of counsel in regards to the initial search and seizure of the Taurus. His claim, both before the habeas court and on appeal, is that had the first search and seizure been deemed unreasonable under the fourth and fourteenth amendments the evidence from the second search would have been excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree. See, e.g., State v. Doyle, 139 Conn.App. 367, 379, 55 A.3d 805 (2012), cert. denied, 307 Conn. 952, 58 A.3d 976 (2013). It is undisputed that the police lacked a warrant to seize or to search the Taurus.

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Doyle, 139 Conn.App. 367, 374, 55 A.3d 805 (2012), cert. denied, 307 Conn. 952, 58 A.3d 976 (2013). At trial, Tirado testified in relevant part as follows: “Basically once we were in the car and headed back [to the Waterbury Police Department], [the defendant] asked—he goes what's this for, and I explained to him it was for murder, he had a warrant for murder for [the victim], and he made a face, shook his head, and I made the statement that I told you we weren't going to stop looking into this, and he was quiet for a few seconds, and then he made the comment, I eventually was going to turn myself in.” (Emphasis added.)

Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Doyle, 139 Conn.App. 367, 383, 55 A.3d 805 (2012), cert. denied, 307 Conn. 952, 58 A.3d 976 (2013). “In cases in which a police stop is based on an informant's tip, corroboration and reliability are important factors in the totality of the circumstances analysis.”

. . . [W]here the legal conclusions of the court are challenged, [our review is plenary, and] we must determine whether they are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Doyle, 139 Conn. App. 367, 374, 55 A.3d 805 (2012), cert. denied, 307 Conn. 952, A.3d (2013). After a scrupulous examination of the record, we conclude that the facts found by the trial court in its memorandum of decision are supported by substantial evidence.

A finding of fact will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous in view of the evidence and pleadings in the whole record.... [W]hen a question of fact is essential to the outcome of a particular legal determination that implicates a defendant's constitutional rights ... our customary deference to the trial court's factual findings is tempered by a scrupulous examination of the record to ascertain that the trial court's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.... [W]here the legal conclusions of the court are challenged, [our review is plenary, and] we must determine whether they are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision....” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Doyle, 139 Conn. App. 367, 374, 55 A.3d 805 (2012), cert. denied, 307 Conn. 952, 58 A.3d 976 (2013). After a scrupulous examination of the record, we conclude that the facts found by the trial court in its memorandum of decision are supported by substantial evidence.