Opinion
(11104)
Argued December 1, 1992
Decision released December 29, 1992
Information charging the defendant with the crime of breach of the peace, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury, geographical area number four, where the court, Leavitt, J., denied the defendant's motion to dismiss; thereafter, the defendant was presented to the court on a conditional plea of nolo contendere; judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Edward R. Giacci, for the appellant (defendant).
Paul J. Ferencek, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John A. Connelly, state's attorney, and Marcia B. Smith, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether the trial court's finding of facts sufficient to support the conclusion that the police were justified in making a warrantless arrest because of the existence of exigent circumstances was clearly erroneous. See State v. Reagan, 209 Conn. 1, 8, 546 A.2d 839 (1988).
One of the tests to be applied in making a determination of whether exigent circumstances exist for the making of an arrest without a warrant is whether a reasonable, well trained police officer would believe that if an immediate arrest is not made, the accused might endanger the safety or property of others. State v. Scott, 27 Conn. App. 403, 409, 606 A.2d 720, cert. denied, 222 Conn. 911, 608 A.2d 1184 (1992).
Our careful examination of the record, briefs and transcripts leads us to conclude that the trial court's finding of facts sufficient to conclude that exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless arrest of the defendant was not clearly erroneous.