Sec. 54-33f. Motion for return of unlawfully seized property and suppression as evidence.
Sec. 54-33f. Motion for return of unlawfully seized property and suppression
as evidence. (a) A person aggrieved by search and seizure may move the court which
has jurisdiction of such person's case or, if such jurisdiction has not yet been invoked,
then the court which issued the warrant, or the court in which such person's case is
pending, for the return of the property and to suppress for use as evidence anything so
obtained on the ground that: (1) The property was seized without a warrant, or (2) the
warrant is insufficient on its face, or (3) the property seized is not that described in the
warrant, or (4) there was not probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds
on which the warrant was issued, or (5) the warrant was illegally executed. In no case
may the judge or judge trial referee who signed the warrant preside at the hearing on
the motion.
(b) The motion shall be made before trial or hearing unless opportunity therefor did
not exist or the defendant was not aware of the grounds for the motion, but the court in
its discretion may entertain the motion at the trial or hearing.
(c) The court shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision
of the motion. If the motion is granted, the property shall be restored unless otherwise
subject to lawful detention and it shall not be admissible in evidence at any hearing
or trial.
(1963, P.A. 652, S. 7; 1967, P.A. 4; 1969, P.A. 292, S. 1; P.A. 80-313, S. 10; P.A. 01-72, S. 6.)
History: 1967 act added proviso prohibiting judge who signed warrant from presiding at hearing on motion; 1969 act
authorized aggrieved person to make motion "in the court in which his case is pending" for return of property and to
suppress its use as evidence; P.A. 80-313 reorganized provisions and divided section into Subsecs.; P.A. 01-72 amended
Subsec. (a) by making technical changes for purposes of gender neutrality and adding reference to judge trial referee.
See note to Sec. 54-33a.
History discussed. 152 C. 90. Cited. 154 C. 314, 321. Neither statement that affiant had information from reliable
informant nor that apartment sought to be searched had been under police surveillance was sufficient grounds for issuance
of warrant, hence search warrant was illegal. 155 C. 385. Motion to suppress evidence consisting of several marked bills
found on defendant immediately after he was observed selling narcotics to an informer, obtained by search incident to his
lawful arrest for commission of felony of illegal sale of narcotics, properly denied. Id., 516. Ruling denying defendant's
motion to suppress evidence of narcotics seized by arresting officer from stolen car in defendant's possession without
obtaining search warrant was superseded by ruling during trial admitting narcotics as evidence. Where defendant driver
of stolen car had been arrested and drugs were found in car on custodial search by arresting officer, motion to suppress
use of drugs in evidence properly denied. 159 C. 201. Cited. 169 C. 322. Person aggrieved by search and seizure may
move to suppress for use as evidence anything obtained upon warrant when there is not probable cause for believing the
existence of grounds for warrant. 170 C. 618. Cited. 195 C. 668. Cited. 216 C. 150, see also 26 CA 423, 27 CA 291, 223
C. 902, and 225 C. 10, reversing judgment of appellate court in State v. Marsala. Cited. 223 C. 903. Cited. 226 C. 514.
Cited. 239 C. 793.
Cited. 10 CA 561. Cited. 14 CA 605. Cited. 27 CA 370. Cited. 31 CA 548.
Use of motion to suppress. 29 CS 423. Motion to dismiss, motion to suppress, difference. 30 CS 211. This section
implements fourth amendment of U.S. Const. and Art. I, Sec. 7 of the Conn. Const. and is analogous to rule 41 of Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure; purposes of rule. 33 CS 129.
Evidence obtained by an immediate search of defendant's apartment after her arrest for liquor violation was admissible.
Search without warrant was an incident to a lawful arrest. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 125. Where officers went beyond directives of
warrant for search of defendant and certain premises and searched automobiles, evidence obtained was suppressed, but
articles taken were not returned in absence of demand or request. Id., 422, 423. Property sought to be suppressed was
voluntarily handed over to police officers by defendant's wife who was not party to defendant's appeal. He has no standing
to claim violation of wife's constitutional rights as these are personal to her. Id., 605. Testimony or information, although
not tangible, come within purview of statute. 5 Conn. Cir. Ct. 44. Although not expressly required it is better practice for
motion to suppress to be in writing. Id., 51. Motion by defendant to suppress evidence seized in search of his car dismissed
by circuit court where prosecuting attorney had instituted bindover proceedings in superior court. Id., 119. While it is better
practice to test legality of seizure in preliminary hearing, court may entertain motion to suppress at trial. Officers did not
search for papers where they had defendant under surveillance in his store and saw him putting papers under rafters of
hatchway and picked them up upon arrest. Id., 613. Where there was probable cause to believe that defendant was in
business of pool selling from allegations of affidavit, search warrant was properly issued. Id, 669. Burden of proof relative
to the illegality of search and seizure is on accused. Newspaper, policy sheet and pen discarded by accused were abandoned
property and apprehension of them by police is not seizure of defendant's property. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 17. (5) Doctrine of
retroactivity not applied to procedural problem of this kind. Id., 192, 194. Motion to suppress must specify item to be
suppressed. Id., 454. Cited. Id., 574; 584.
Subsec. (a):
Subdiv. (5) cited. 15 CA 251.