Case Title: State v. Jenkins

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: connecticut

Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Date: 2010-09-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
******************************************************
The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the
beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will
be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the
date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative
date for the beginning of all time periods for filing
postopinion motions and petitions for certification is
the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.
In no event will any such motions be accepted before
the ‘‘officially released’’ date.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the
event of discrepancies between the electronic version
of an opinion and the print version appearing in the
Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con-
necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the
latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official
Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service
and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes
of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of
the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro-
duced and distributed without the express written per-
mission
of
the
Commission
on
Official
Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
******************************************************
STATE OF CONNECTICUT v.
CHRISTOPHER JENKINS
(SC 18077)
Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Vertefeuille and Zarella, Js.*
Argued October 28, 2009—officially released September 7, 2010
James M. Ralls, senior assistant state’s attorney, with
whom, on the brief, were Scott Murphy, state’s attorney,
and Paul Rotiroti, senior assistant state’s attorney, for
the appellant (state).
Timothy H. Everett, special public defender, with
whom, on the brief, was Christopher Houck, certified
legal intern, for the appellee (defendant).
Jon L. Schoenhorn filed a brief for the Connecticut
Criminal Defense Lawyers Association as amicus
curiae.
Opinion
NORCOTT, J. In this certified appeal, we consider the
limitations, under the fourth amendment to the United
States constitution1 and article first, § 7, of the Connecti-
cut constitution,2 on police questioning and requests
for consent to search automobiles conducted during
the course of routine traffic stops. The state appeals,
following our grant of its petition for certification,3 from
the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the trial
court’s judgment of guilty of possession of narcotics
with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-depen-
dent pursuant to General Statutes § 21a-278 (b),4 ren-
dered after a conditional nolo contendere plea following
the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress evi-
dence found in the automobile of the defendant, Chris-
topher Jenkins. State v. Jenkins, 104 Conn. App. 417,
934 A.2d 281 (2007). Guided by case law following the
United States Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Ari-
zona v. Johnson,
U.S.
, 129 S. Ct. 781, 172 L. Ed.
2d 694 (2009), Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 125 S. Ct.
1465, 161 L. Ed. 2d 299 (2005), and Ohio v. Robinette,
519 U.S. 33, 117 S. Ct. 417, 136 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1996), we
agree with the state that, under the federal constitution,
the detective validly searched the defendant’s automo-
bile because the traffic stop was not measurably pro-
longed and the defendant voluntarily had consented to
the search. We further conclude that the state constitu-
tion does not provide the defendant with any increased
protection with respect to nontraffic related ques-
tioning and requests for consent to search during rou-
tine traffic stops. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment
of the Appellate Court.
The record reveals the following facts and procedural
history. On the night of May 7, 2004, Michael Morgan,
a detective with the Newington police department, was
patrolling the Berlin Turnpike (turnpike) in Newington
in connection with a special traffic safety detail known
as turnpike traffic enforcement. Morgan drove an
unmarked police cruiser, but wore a full police uniform,
complete with a badge, a sidearm, and a utility belt
with handcuffs, pepper spray and a Stinger flashlight.
At approximately 11:15 p.m., Morgan observed a Nissan
Altima (Altima), operated by the defendant and pro-
ceeding northbound on the turnpike, make two abrupt
lane changes without signaling. Morgan then activated
his cruiser’s emergency lights and initiated a traffic stop
for making lane changes without signaling in violation
of General Statutes § 14-242.
After Morgan stopped the Altima on the shoulder of
the turnpike near its intersection with Griswoldville
Avenue, a short distance south of the former Krispy
Kreme doughnut shop, he radioed the Altima’s Pennsyl-
vania license plate number to his dispatcher, who
checked it and did not report any matters of concern.
Morgan then approached the defendant on the driver’s
side of the Altima, informed him of the reason for the
stop and requested his driver’s license, registration and
insurance papers. Morgan also questioned the defen-
dant regarding his travel itinerary; the defendant told
Morgan that he was returning from visiting his daughter
in New York. The defendant then gave Morgan a New
Jersey driver’s license and a valid Pennsylvania rental
agreement for the Altima. Morgan testified that, during
this exchange and the remainder of the traffic stop, the
defendant appeared ‘‘unusually nervous,’’ gave ‘‘quick
answers’’ to his questions and did not make eye contact
with him.
Morgan then took the defendant’s papers back to his
cruiser, where he checked the defendant’s personal and
vehicular information with his dispatcher, and learned
that there were no outstanding warrants, wants or cau-
tions
pertaining
to
the
defendant.
Morgan
also
requested a backup officer to respond to the scene of
the traffic stop, because he had decided that he was
going to ask the defendant for consent to search his
vehicle. Morgan then began to write an infraction ticket
for the illegal lane changes.
By the time Morgan had finished writing the ticket,
the backup officer and shift supervisor, Sergeant Der-
rick Sutton, had arrived, also wearing a full police uni-
form. Morgan then approached the defendant and asked
him to exit his car in order better to explain the ticket.5
Morgan then explained the ticket to the defendant, but
did not give it to him at that time. On the basis of the
defendant’s continued nervous demeanor and account
of his travels,6 Morgan asked him whether he had any-
thing ‘‘illegal’’ on his person. The defendant replied that
he did not have anything illegal on him, and Morgan
then patted down the defendant, which did not reveal
any contraband.7 Morgan then asked whether the defen-
dant had anything ‘‘illegal’’ in the Altima. The defendant
replied that all he had in the car was some beer on the
floor by the passenger seat, and told Morgan that he
could ‘‘go ahead and check. You can check if you want.’’8
At this point, Morgan did not inquire further of the
defendant, or advise him that he could refuse to allow
Morgan to search the car. Morgan then instructed the
defendant to stand with Sutton, and Morgan began to
search the interior of the Altima. Morgan testified that,
during the stop, neither he nor Sutton had drawn their
weapons, nor had handcuffed, threatened or otherwise
coerced the defendant.
Morgan began his search of the Altima on the driver’s
side of the vehicle and immediately proceeded to open
a closed compartment in its center console, where he
found a package wrapped in white tissue paper. The
tissue paper concealed a plastic bag that contained
a white powder substance that Morgan identified as
cocaine. At that point, Morgan stopped the search,
handcuffed the defendant and placed him under arrest.
Following the defendant’s arrest, a search of the rest
of the Altima, including the backseat and trunk area,
revealed additional cocaine and a large quantity of her-
oin.9 From the time that Morgan initiated the stop, until
he obtained consent to search, only ten to fifteen
minutes had elapsed, a period of time that he testified
was consistent with an average traffic stop. The entire
stop lasted at most twenty minutes, from its inception
until the defendant’s arrest.
Thereafter, the state charged the defendant with two
counts of possession of narcotics by a person who is
not drug-dependent in violation of § 21a-278 (a) and
(b),10 and one count each of possession of narcotics in
violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a), possession
of drug paraphernalia in violation of General Statutes
§ 21a-267 (a), and making an improper turn without a
signal in violation of § 14-242. The defendant then
moved to suppress all evidence seized from him and his
vehicle, claiming that the traffic stop was impermissibly
extended without probable cause or reasonable and
articulable suspicion, and also that he had not volunta-
rily consented to the search of his vehicle.
The trial court, Alexander, J., following an eviden-
tiary hearing at which Morgan was the only witness,
denied the defendant’s motion to suppress. The trial
court found that the state had proven by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that the defendant had ‘‘freely and
voluntarily given consent . . . in the search of his
motor vehicle’’ because ‘‘the initial motor vehicle stop
was a result of observed traffic violations; the length
of the stop was brief (no more than fifteen minutes);
the conduct of the officer was professional and not
overbearing; the defendant told the officer to check his
vehicle for illegal items; [and] the defendant did not
withdraw his consent at any time.’’ Noting that it was
appropriate for Morgan to ask the defendant to exit
his car during the stop; see generally Pennsylvania v.
Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S. Ct. 330, 54 L. Ed. 2d 331
(1977); State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 547 A.2d 10 (1988);
the trial court then specifically declined to credit the
defendant’s claim that ‘‘his statement to the police that
evening was meant only to have the officer look at the
beer in his car,’’ considering the defendant’s spontane-
ous response to Morgan’s inquiry about the presence of
illegal items to be ‘‘unambiguous: go ahead and check.’’
Following the denial of his motion to suppress, the
defendant pleaded nolo contendere, conditioned on his
right to appeal, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a,11
to one count of possession of narcotics with intent to
sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation
of § 21a-278 (b). The trial court, Handy, J., then sen-
tenced the defendant to twenty years imprisonment,
execution suspended after eight years, and five years
probation.
The defendant appealed from the judgment of convic-
tion to the Appellate Court, which concluded that the
trial court should have suppressed the evidence taken
from the defendant’s car because he ‘‘was unlawfully
detained . . . his consent to search the vehicle was
tainted by that illegal detention and . . . the state
failed to purge the taint of the illegal detention.’’ State
v. Jenkins, supra, 104 Conn. App. 424. The Appellate
Court stated that, under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88
S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968), ‘‘[i]n determining
if a seizure has exceeded the scope of a permissible
motor vehicle stop, the court must determine whether
the officer’s action was justified at its inception and
whether it was reasonably related in scope to the cir-
cumstances that justified the interference in the first
place.’’ State v. Jenkins, supra, 427. Emphasizing that
the validity of the initial stop was uncontested; id.; the
Appellate Court then observed that ‘‘Morgan did not
embark on his inquiry into whether the defendant was
engaged in other illegal activity until after Morgan had
(1) completed a check of the defendant’s license and
determined that it was valid and that there were no
outstanding warrants for him, (2) examined the car
rental agreement and determined that it appeared in
order and that the time frame for the rental was valid
and (3) returned to the defendant’s vehicle, had him
exit the vehicle and explained the traffic ticket to the
defendant. Accordingly, [the Appellate Court concluded
that] the record clearly reveal[ed] that Morgan’s inquiry
into other suspected illegal activity came after Morgan’s
purpose for effectuating the stop had been achieved.’’12
(Emphasis in original.) Id., 428–29.
Having concluded that the stop had been extended
beyond the time necessary to effectuate its initial pur-
pose, the Appellate Court then concluded that the
state’s evidence ‘‘did not establish that Morgan had
reasonable suspicion to expand the scope of the stop
into an inquiry of whether the defendant was engaged
in illegal activity unrelated to the underlying stop or
that Morgan was proceeding on anything more than a
mere hunch. Therefore, once Morgan began to question
the defendant about unrelated illegal activity, the for-
merly valid motor vehicle stop morphed into an illegally
prolonged seizure of the defendant.’’ Id., 434. Applying
the three factor test articulated in Brown v. Illinois,
422 U.S. 590, 603–604, 95 S. Ct. 2254, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416
(1975), to determine whether the taint of police miscon-
duct has been attenuated,13 the Appellate Court further
determined that the defendant’s consent was tainted
by the improper detention and that the state had not
purged that taint because the consent was given while
the defendant was illegally detained, that there were
no intervening circumstances such as an admonition
that the defendant had the right to refuse the search,
and that Morgan’s official misconduct was particularly
flagrant on the basis of his testimony that he had patted
the defendant down without any justifiable basis. State
v. Jenkins, supra, 104 Conn. App. 434–36. Accordingly,
the Appellate Court reversed the defendant’s conviction
and remanded the case to the trial court with direction
to grant the defendant’s motion to suppress.14 Id., 437.
This certified appeal followed. See footnote 3 of this
opinion.
On appeal to this court, the state argues that the
Appellate Court improperly: (1) relied on an inadequate
record and reached out to decide claims not properly
raised before the trial court, specifically whether Mor-
gan improperly had patted down the defendant prior
to obtaining his consent to search the Altima; and (2)
concluded that, under the federal constitution, the
scope or length of a traffic stop must be limited to its
initial purpose, particularly given that there was proba-
ble cause that the defendant had committed two traffic
violations in Morgan’s presence. In response, the defen-
dant strongly disagrees, and also argues as alternative
grounds for affirming the judgment of the Appellate
Court that: (1) his consent to search was involuntary; (2)
Morgan’s search exceeded the scope of the defendant’s
consent; and (3) Morgan obtained the defendant’s con-
sent to search in violation of article first, § 7, of the
Connecticut constitution, which he posits provides
greater specific protections for motorists than does the
federal constitution.
‘‘Our standard of review of a trial court’s findings and
conclusions in connection with a motion to suppress is
well defined. 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]here the
legal conclusions of the court are challenged, 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 . . . . We undertake a
more probing factual review when a constitutional ques-
tion hangs in the balance.’’ (Citation omitted; internal
quotation marks omitted.) State v. Burroughs, 288
Conn. 836, 843, 955 A.2d 43 (2008). The issues presented
in this appeal concern the articulation and application
of the relevant federal and state constitutional rules
governing the conduct of routine traffic stops. Unless
specifically noted; see part II B of this opinion; we agree
with the defendant that they present questions of law
over which our review is plenary.
I
ADEQUACY OF THE RECORD FOR REVIEW OF
CLAIMS PERTAINING TO THE
PATDOWN SEARCH OF
THE DEFENDANT
Given the fact sensitive nature of constitutional sup-
pression inquiries, we begin with the state’s claim that
the Appellate Court improperly considered the fact of
an illegal patdown search in agreeing with the defen-
dant’s contention that his consent to search the Altima
was tainted by the previously performed illegal search.
The state notes that the issue was not raised in the
defendant’s motion to suppress or litigated during the
suppression hearing, and relies on State v. Brunetti,
279 Conn. 39, 901 A.2d 1 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S.
1212, 127 S. Ct. 1328, 167 L. Ed. 2d 85 (2007), and
State v. Medina, 228 Conn. 281, 636 A.2d 351 (1994),
to contend that the record is, therefore, inadequate for
review of this unpreserved claim pursuant to State v.
Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989).
In response, the defendant contends that the Appellate
Court properly considered evidence in the record of
the suppression hearing because the trial court failed
to make detailed findings of fact, and emphasizes that
he complied with his obligation to ensure a record ade-
quate for appellate review by filing a motion for articula-
tion, the trial court’s denial of which was upheld by
the Appellate Court. We conclude that the defendant’s
failure to litigate the validity of the patdown during the
suppression hearing rendered the record inadequate for
Golding review of this issue, and that the Appellate
Court improperly considered any impropriety with
respect to the patdown in its analysis of the defen-
dant’s claims.
The record reveals the following additional relevant
facts and procedural history. When the defendant
moved the trial court to suppress the narcotics found
in the Altima, he claimed that the evidence was the
fruit of an illegal search and seizure, namely, his deten-
tion ‘‘for an extended period without probable cause
or a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the defen-
dant was engaged in illegal activity . . . .’’ In his
motion, the defendant contended that, ‘‘[a]t no time did
[he] voluntarily consent to the search of his vehicle,’’
any consent obtained ‘‘was tainted by the illegal action
of [the] officers,’’ and that he ‘‘did not feel free to leave
or decline to answer any questions posed by the officer
due to the circumstances of the time of day, the number
of officers called to the scene, and the fact that [he]
was alone.’’ The defendant did not mention or question
the legality of the patdown in his motion to suppress.
Following the suppression hearing, at which Morgan
testified briefly about the patdown,15 the parties briefed
and then argued the case orally before the trial court.
In his memorandum of law, the defendant mentioned
the patdown search in the statement of the facts, and
then noted only that ‘‘the extended detention of the
defendant and the warrantless search of his vehicle
were not conducted to promote officer safety or to
preserve evidence. . . . Morgan failed to articulate
what crime he had reason to suspect the defendant was
committing and stated that at the time of the patdown
search, he did not suspect that the defendant was car-
rying a weapon. These factors, which must be consid-
ered when determining whether the seizure of the
defendant was reasonable under the circumstances, do
not balance in favor of governmental intrusion into the
defendant’s liberty.’’ The defendant did not mention the
patdown in examining the totality of the circumstances
and arguing that his consent was not voluntarily given.16
The state did not mention the patdown in its memoran-
dum in opposition, nor did the trial court discuss the
patdown in its memorandum of decision.
After the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court,
he contended specifically that, ‘‘(1) even if his consent
to search the vehicle had been voluntary, it was tainted
by a prior, unconstitutional search of his person, (2)
the state failed to establish that he actually consented
to the search of the vehicle, (3) any consent to search
was not given voluntarily and (4) any consent to search
was obtained by a violation of the Connecticut constitu-
tion by the police improperly converting a traffic stop
into a criminal investigation.’’17 (Emphasis added.) State
v. Jenkins, supra, 104 Conn. App. 423–24; see also id.,
427–28 (‘‘the defendant’s relevant claim on appeal
relates to whether Morgan improperly expanded the
scope of the stop by questioning the defendant about
whether he was engaged in unrelated illegal activity
and then performing a search of the defendant’s person
and his car, after the initial purpose for effectuating the
stop had been achieved’’). In connection with seeking
Golding review of this claim, the defendant moved for
an articulation seeking to have the trial court answer,
inter alia: ‘‘After the defendant was ordered from his car,
did . . . Morgan search the defendant’s person and, if
so, for what purpose? . . . Did the court find that the
search of the defendant was reasonable? Did the court
consider the search of defendant’s person in determin-
ing whether the subsequent search of the defendant’s
car was constitutional?’’ The state did not take a posi-
tion on the defendant’s motion, but the trial court
denied it. Thereafter, the Appellate Court granted the
defendant’s motion for review of that denial, but denied
the relief requested.18
Subsequently, the Appellate Court agreed with the
state’s argument that ‘‘the issue of whether the defen-
dant’s person was illegally searched was not raised in
the trial court and that the record is inadequate to
establish whether the defendant consented to the
search of his person,’’ and noted that, ‘‘even if we
assume arguendo that an illegal search of the defen-
dant’s person occurred, this, in and of itself, does not
necessarily invalidate the search of the defendant’s
car.’’ State v. Jenkins, supra, 104 Conn. App. 428 n.11.
Nevertheless, after determining that the defendant’s
consent followed an unlawfully prolonged detention,
the Appellate Court, in applying the three factor attenu-
ation test articulated in Brown v. Illinois, supra, 422
U.S. 603–604; see footnote 13 of this opinion; the third
factor of which considers the ‘‘purpose and flagrancy
of the police misconduct’’; Brown v. Illinois, supra,
604; stated that: ‘‘Morgan testified that he conducted a
patdown search of the defendant although he did not
believe that the defendant was armed. While the record
is inadequate to determine whether the defendant’s
person was illegally searched, it is disconcerting that
the officer testified that he conducted such a patdown
without any justifiable basis.’’ (Emphasis added.)
State v. Jenkins, supra, 436; see also id., 428 n.11 (‘‘as
discussed herein, the fact that the defendant was patted
down prior to the search of his car is relevant to whether
his consent was tainted’’).
Before this court, the defendant renews his argument,
accepted by the Appellate Court, that, under Brown v.
Illinois, supra, 422 U.S. 603–604, the illegal patdown
demonstrates that Morgan had engaged in ‘‘flagrant’’
misconduct by extending the stop. The defendant also
relies on the patdown in support of his alternative
ground for affirming the judgment of the Appellate
Court, namely, that his consent was involuntary
because the ‘‘search of [the defendant’s] person signi-
fied that he was already being treated as if he were
under arrest,’’ and the patdown violated ‘‘a fundamental
principle of constitutional law that [the] police may not
touch a citizen without justification.’’
The defendant’s various claims in this certified appeal
are an amalgam of issues both preserved and unpre-
served in the trial court. With respect to those issues
that are unpreserved, he seeks review pursuant to State
v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239–40, under which ‘‘a
defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error
not preserved at trial only if all of the following condi-
tions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the
alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional
magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right;
(3) the alleged constitutional violation clearly exists
and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and
(4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has
failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged con-
stitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt. In the
absence of any one of these conditions, the defendant’s
claim will fail.’’ To the extent that the defendant relies
on the patdown in support of his constitutional claims,
the legality of the frisk itself implicates the Golding rule
because the defendant did not raise that issue before the
trial court.
Our recent case law addressing whether a record is
adequate for review under the first prong of Golding
makes clear that this preservation exception operates
in a very restrictive manner, particularly in the fact
sensitive context of illegal search and seizure claims.
The leading recent decision on this topic is State v.
Brunetti, supra, 279 Conn. 42, wherein we declined to
review the defendant’s claim, made for the first time
on appeal, ‘‘that he was entitled to a new trial because,
even though his father had consented to the search [of
the defendant’s home], the search was constitutionally
infirm because the defendant’s mother, who was pres-
ent when the police obtained the father’s consent,
declined to consent to the search.’’ Specifically, before
the trial court, the defendant’s motion to suppress
bloody clothing found in the home where he had lived
with his parents, and the confession that followed his
arrest, focused solely on the validity of his father’s con-
sent to the search, on the ground that his father had
been improperly induced to agree to the search. Id.,
48–49. The suppression hearing transcript subsequently
revealed that the defendant’s mother had refused to
sign the written consent form proffered by the police,
but neither the state nor defense counsel inquired fur-
ther about the mother’s refusal to sign the consent form,
despite the fact that she had testified at the hearing.
Id., 49–50. The trial court’s ruling on the defendant’s
motion to suppress concluded that ‘‘the defendant’s
father’s consent to search was knowing and voluntary,
and, therefore, constitutionally valid.’’ Id., 50. After the
defendant was convicted of murder and filed an appeal,
he moved for articulation of numerous questions,
including whether his mother ‘‘ ‘decline[d] to give her
consent for a search of the house?’ ’’ Id., 52. The trial
court denied the motion for an articulation, and we
subsequently declined to order it to issue the requested
articulation. Id., 53–54.
We thereafter concluded that the record was inade-
quate for review of the defendant’s joint consent claim
under the first prong of Golding. Id., 56–64. We rejected
his argument that the trial court’s statement, in ruling
on his suppression motion, that ‘‘[i]t is clear that at
least one of the parties, one of the parents, declined to
consent to [the] search,’’ ‘‘perfected the record for
review because it [constituted] a finding, supported by
[the]
evidence,
that
the
defendant’s
mother
had
declined to consent to the search.’’ (Internal quotation
marks omitted.) Id., 56. We disagreed with the defen-
dant’s reliance on testimony that his mother had
declined to sign the consent form, and emphasized that,
‘‘the act of declining to sign a consent to search form
is not tantamount to a refusal to consent to the search;
rather, it is simply one of several relevant factors that
a court considers in determining the validity of a con-
sent to search. . . . Because the refusal to sign a con-
sent to search form is one of several factors to be
considered in determining the validity of consent, such
refusal does not vitiate consent otherwise found to be
valid in light of all of the circumstances.’’ (Citation
omitted; emphasis in original.) Id.
Most importantly, we emphasized that, ‘‘because the
defendant’s motions to suppress did not implicate the
mother’s consent or lack thereof, the state was not on
notice that it was required to establish, on the basis of
the totality of the circumstances, that the defendant’s
mother had consented to or acquiesced in the search.
In such circumstances, the state bears no responsibility
for the evidentiary lacunae, and, therefore, it would be
manifestly unfair to the state for this court to reach the
merits of the defendant’s claim upon a mere assump-
tion that the defendant’s mother had declined to con-
sent to the search.’’19 (Emphasis in original.) Id., 59; see
also id., 62 (‘‘because the state had no obligation or
incentive to adduce any evidence regarding the moth-
er’s consent or lack thereof, no conclusion—indeed,
no inference—reasonably can be drawn from her failure
to sign the form’’ [emphasis added]). Accordingly, we
concluded that ‘‘the defendant has failed to satisfy the
first prong of Golding because the facts revealed by the
record are inadequate to establish whether the alleged
constitutional violation did, in fact, occur.’’20 Id., 64.
Our other recent case law is consistent with Brunetti
and makes clear that we consistently have declined
to grant Golding review to fourth amendment claims
wherein the predicate factual record was not com-
pletely developed before the trial court. See State v.
Dalzell, 282 Conn. 709, 721, 924 A.2d 809 (2007) (This
court declined to decide whether pretextual traffic
stops violate the state constitution because ‘‘the trial
court . . . made no findings regarding [the officer’s]
motivation for stopping the defendant’s vehicle. Fur-
thermore, to allow this claim to be presented for the
first time on appeal would work a grave injustice on
the state as it did not have any opportunity to develop
a factual record to dispute the defendant’s claim of
pretext.’’); State v. Canales, 281 Conn. 572, 582, 916
A.2d 767 (2007) (following Brunetti and finding record
inadequate for review of claim that defendant’s state-
ments were product of illegal arrest ‘‘because the defen-
dant did not argue at the suppression hearing that the
arrest lacked probable cause, [and] the state did not
offer evidence concerning probable cause’’); accord
State v. Batts, 281 Conn. 682, 694, 916 A.2d 788 (defen-
dant could not prove constitutional violation under
third prong of Golding with respect to claim that state
should bear ‘‘heightened standard of proof’’ for justi-
fying stops based on racial profiling because record
was ‘‘entirely devoid of evidence of racial profiling’’),
cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1047, 128 S. Ct. 667, 169 L. Ed.
2d 524 (2007).
Thus, we agree with the state that the Appellate Court
improperly considered any illegality attendant to Mor-
gan’s patdown of the defendant. Given the fact that the
state was not alerted to the need to develop a factual
record concerning whether potentially permissible
bases, such as consent,21 existed for the patdown
search, we conclude that it was improper for the Appel-
late Court to label the patdown negatively or to draw
any adverse inferences from it on the basis of Morgan’s
testimony, which may not have presented a complete
picture of what had occurred with respect to the pat-
down. Thus, we decline to consider the patdown as
anything other than a historical fact, and ascribe to it
no legal significance.
II
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS
Accordingly, we now turn to the federal constitu-
tional issues presented by the present case. First, we
must consider whether Morgan’s acts of questioning
the defendant about topics unrelated to the reason for
the traffic stop, as well as asking for consent to search,
were themselves constitutionally permissible during a
routine traffic stop. If we conclude that they were, we
then must address the defendant’s alternative grounds
for affirmance under the federal constitution, namely
that: (1) his consent was not voluntary; and (2) Morgan’s
search exceeded the scope of the defendant’s consent.
A
Permissible Scope of Investigation during
Routine Traffic Stops
The state, relying on Arizona v. Johnson, supra, 129
S. Ct. 781, and Ohio v. Robinette, supra, 519 U.S. 33,
claims that, under the restrictions of Terry v. Ohio,
supra, 392 U.S. 1, questioning during a routine traffic
stop need not be carefully tailored to the initial purpose
of the stop, so long as the stop’s overall duration is not
‘‘measurably extended’’ beyond the time necessary to
accomplish the tasks attendant to that reason for the
stop. In response, the defendant contends that Morgan
ordered him from his car at a point when the traffic
stop should have ended with the issuance of the traffic
ticket and the return of the defendant’s papers, thus
creating an independent stop for Terry purposes that
improperly lacked its own separate basis of reasonable
suspicion beyond the moving violation. The defendant
further argues that, because Morgan had not yet issued
the ticket and had retained his documentation, the
defendant was not free to leave at the time Morgan
asked for consent to search, thereby rendering his con-
sent the fruit of an improper stop not supported by
reasonable suspicion. We conclude that Morgan’s ques-
tions, including his request for consent to search, were
permissible because they did not measurably extend
the duration of the traffic stop.
Courts considering the constitutionality under the
fourth amendment of a police officer’s interaction with
a motorist during a routine traffic stop apply the princi-
ples developed under the line of case law implementing
the central holding of Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S.
1.22 See, e.g., Arizona v. Johnson, supra, 129 S. Ct. 786;
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439, 104 S. Ct. 3138,
82 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1984); United States v. Bell, 555 F.3d
535, 539–40 (6th Cir.), cert. denied,
U.S.
, 129 S.
Ct. 2887, 174 L. Ed. 2d 595 (2009); United States v.
Turvin, 517 F.3d 1097, 1099–1101 (9th Cir. 2008); Salm-
eron v. State, 280 Ga. 735, 736–37, 632 S.E.2d 645 (2006);
State v. Washington, 898 N.E.2d 1200, 1204 (Ind. 2008).
Under Terry, ‘‘where a police officer observes unusual
conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in
light of his experience that criminal activity may be
afoot . . . the officer may briefly stop the suspicious
person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirm-
ing or dispelling his suspicions. . . .
‘‘It is well established, however, that [t]he police offi-
cer is not entitled to seize and search every person
whom he sees on the street or of whom he makes
inquiries. Before he places a hand on the person of a
citizen in search of anything, he must have constitution-
ally adequate, reasonable grounds for doing so. In the
case of the self-protective search for weapons, he must
be able to point to particular facts from which he rea-
sonably inferred that the individual was armed and dan-
gerous. . . . The authority to permit a reasonable
search for weapons for the protection of the police
officer is narrowly drawn applying only where he has
reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and
dangerous individual . . . . The officer need not be
absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue
is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circum-
stances would be warranted in the belief that his safety
or that of others was in danger. . . . And in determin-
ing whether the officer acted reasonably in such circum-
stances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate
and unparticularized suspicion or hunch, but to the
specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to
draw from the facts in light of his experience.’’ (Cita-
tions omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State
v. Nash, 278 Conn. 620, 631–32, 899 A.2d 1 (2006).
A Terry stop does not give law enforcement officers
carte blanche to stop and detain citizens indefinitely or
unreasonably because, ‘‘if an investigative stop contin-
ues indefinitely, at some point it can no longer be justi-
fied as an investigative stop. But our cases impose no
rigid time limitation on Terry stops. While it is clear that
the brevity of the invasion of the individual’s [f]ourth
[a]mendment interests
is an
important factor
in
determining whether the seizure is so minimally intru-
sive as to be justifiable on reasonable suspicion . . .
we have emphasized the need to consider the law
enforcement purposes to be served by the stop as well
as the time reasonably needed to effectuate those pur-
poses.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks
omitted.) United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685,
105 S. Ct. 1568, 84 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1985). Thus, the
Supreme Court has rejected attempts to impose ‘‘a hard-
and-fast time limit’’ on Terry stops, in favor of a reason-
ableness inquiry where, ‘‘[i]n assessing whether a deten-
tion is too long in duration to be justified as an
investigative stop, we consider it appropriate to exam-
ine whether the police diligently pursued a means of
investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their
suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary
to detain the defendant. . . . A court making this
assessment should take care to consider whether the
police are acting in a swiftly developing situation, and
in such cases the court should not indulge in unrealistic
second-guessing.’’ (Citations omitted.) Id., 686.
Applying this reasoning in the traffic stop context,
the United States Supreme Court recently followed
Muehler v. Mena, supra, 544 U.S. 100–101, wherein it
had determined that the police did not violate the fourth
amendment rights of a woman detained during the exe-
cution of a search warrant by questioning her about
her immigration status,23 and concluded that ‘‘[a] lawful
roadside stop begins when a vehicle is pulled over for
investigation of a traffic violation. The temporary sei-
zure of driver and passengers ordinarily continues, and
remains reasonable, for the duration of the stop. Nor-
mally, the stop ends when the police have no further
need to control the scene, and inform the driver and
passengers they are free to leave. . . . An officer’s
inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for
the traffic stop, this [c]ourt has made plain, do not
convert the encounter into something other than a law-
ful seizure, so long as those inquiries do not measur-
ably extend the duration of the stop.’’24 (Citation
omitted; emphasis added.) Arizona v. Johnson, supra,
129 S. Ct. 788; see id., 784, 788 (concluding that passen-
ger was seized incident to lawful traffic stop of driver
and that police officer properly could frisk passenger
with reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dan-
gerous); see also Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 408–
409, 125 S. Ct. 834, 160 L. Ed. 2d 842 (2005) (use of
trained narcotics sniffing dog around exterior of car
during lawful traffic stop was permissible because it
did not implicate privacy interests and ‘‘the duration of
the stop . . . was entirely justified by the traffic
offense and the ordinary inquiries incident to such a
stop’’); cf. 4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure (4th Ed.
2004 & 2009–2010 Sup.) § 9.3, p. 91.
Thus, questions permissible under Terry during a
routine traffic stop include inquiries about whether the
car or driver are carrying contraband, as well as con-
comitant requests for consent to search the vehicle.
See 4 W. LaFave, supra (4th Ed. 2004), § 9.3 (d), p. 389
and § 9.3 (e), p. 397, and (2009–2010 Sup.), § 9.3, pp.
91, 94 (noting that Illinois v. Caballes, supra, 543 U.S.
405, supports requests for consent to search that do
not extend duration of stop). These inquiries are permis-
sible even if they are irrelevant to the initial purpose
of the stop, namely, the traffic violation, so long as they
do not ‘‘measurably extend’’ the stop beyond the time
necessary to complete the investigation of the traffic
violation and issue a citation or warning. Consideration
of that time period necessarily includes the completion
of tasks attendant to the traffic stop, including ‘‘a check
of the driver’s license, vehicle registration, and criminal
history, and the writing of the citation or warning,’’ as
well as background questions about the destination and
purpose of the driver’s trip. United States v. Olivera-
Mendez, 484 F.3d 505, 509 (8th Cir. 2007); see also, e.g.,
Salmeron v. State, supra, 280 Ga. 737 (‘‘[i]t does not
unreasonably expand the scope or duration of a valid
traffic stop for an officer to prolong the stop to immedi-
ately investigate and determine if the driver is entitled
to continue to operate the vehicle by checking the status
of the driver’s license, insurance, and vehicle registra-
tion’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]). Indeed, given
that complications with respect to these tasks may well
result in an extension of the time of detention without
rendering it unreasonable under the fourth amendment,
‘‘[w]hether a particular detention is reasonable in length
is a fact-intensive question, and there is no per se time
limit on all traffic stops.’’ United States v. Olivera-
Mendez, supra, 510; see also Byndloss v. State, 391 Md.
462, 469–72, 492, 893 A.2d 1119 (2006) (upholding traffic
stop wherein motorist was detained for approximately
thirty minutes, even after officer already had drafted
written warning, because of computer and communica-
tion problems that impeded completion of license and
warrants checks, which allowed time for narcotics sniff-
ing dog to be brought to scene).
Accordingly, decisions in the wake of Arizona v.
Johnson, supra, 129 S. Ct. 781, hold similarly and, in
upholding the conduct of such stops as reasonable,
uniformly have emphasized the de minimis nature of
the nontraffic related questioning and requests for con-
sent to search within the context of the stop as a whole.25
See, e.g., United States v. Harrison, 606 F.3d 42, 45 (2d
Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (extension of traffic stop by
five to six minutes to question driver and passengers
was reasonable and did not violate fourth amendment);
United States v. Everett, 601 F.3d 484, 495–96 (6th Cir.
2010) (adopting reasonableness standard for determin-
ing whether questioning on unrelated subjects improp-
erly extended duration of routine traffic stop); United
States v. Taylor, 596 F.3d 373, 376 (7th Cir. 2010) (offi-
cers did not violate fourth amendment during traffic
stop for seat belt infraction by questioning defendant
briefly about presence of ‘‘weapons, drugs, or illegal
items on his person or in the vehicle’’ and then
requesting consent to search), cert. denied,
U.S.
(78 U.S.L.W. 3744, June 21, 2010); United States v. Derv-
erger, 337 Fed. Appx. 34, 35–36 (2d Cir. 2009) (per
curiam) (‘‘[w]e conclude without any need for further
factfinding that the five minutes of questioning [about
the defendant’s nervous demeanor and contents of his
car] did not significantly extend the time [the defendant]
was detained’’ during stop for seat belt violation);
United States v. Rivera, 570 F.3d 1009, 1013–15 (8th
Cir. 2009) (concluding that trooper’s questions about
whether defendant ‘‘ ‘had guns or anything illegal in the
truck’ ’’ did not ‘‘measurably extend’’ stop because they
were asked immediately after questioning during first
four to six minutes of seventeen minute stop, related
directly to stop, and delays were caused by waiting
for results of background check and confirmation of
consent; after defendant withdrew consent, narcotics-
sniffing dog alerted presence of narcotics); United
States v. Bell, supra, 555 F.3d 538, 542–43 (officers did
not improperly extend length of stop, despite their lack
of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity beyond ini-
tial violation, because K-9 officer was able to respond
and effect dog sniff of car approximately twelve minutes
into stop while other officer waited for results of license
check, wrote speeding warning and discussed it with
defendant); United States v. Cousin, United States Dis-
trict Court, Docket No. 1:09-CR-90, 2010 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 3688, *9 (E.D. Tenn. January 19, 2010) (during
traffic stop, ‘‘[a]n officer may ask a handful of questions,
including asking for consent to search the vehicle, and
not unreasonably detain an individual’’); United States
v. McBride, United States District Court,Docket No.
1:09-CR-21-TS, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113405, *10, 18–20,
22 (N.D. Ind. December 4, 2009) (officer’s question prior
to issuing ticket about whether defendant ‘‘had any
dead bodies or anything in his car,’’ followed by request
for consent to search, did not violate fourth amendment
because time to inquire was only approximately two
minutes out of twenty-two minute stop, and therefore
‘‘negligible’’ in context of entire stop); D.A. v. State, 10
So. 3d 674, 676–78 (Fla. App.) (despite having already
decided not to issue summons for expired temporary
registration,
police
officer
properly
asked
driver
whether vehicle contained anything illegal), review
denied, 20 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 2009); Boyd v. State, 300
Ga. App. 455, 456, 458 and n.1, 685 S.E.2d 319 (2009)
(questions about driver’s methamphetamine use did not
violate fourth amendment despite fact that they were
unrelated to purpose of stop); State v. Morlock, 289 Kan.
980, 993, 218 P.3d 801 (2009) (noting that questioning of
passenger did not extend stop because it took place
during ‘‘concededly legitimate hunt for the [rental]
agreement’’); People v. Edwards, 14 N.Y.3d 741,
,
N.E.2d
, 898 N.Y.S.2d 538, 539 (2010) (per curiam)
(‘‘The initial stop of [the] defendant’s vehicle was per-
missible and the police officers’ subjective motivation
to investigate possible drug activity does not negate the
objective reasonableness of the officers’ actions . . . .
In addition . . . as a matter of law, the officers did not
inordinately prolong the detention beyond what was
reasonable under the circumstances to address the traf-
fic infraction . . . .’’ [Citations omitted.]).
We emphasize, however, that in evaluating the dura-
tion of a traffic stop, the reviewing court still must
consider the stop through the lens of the time reason-
ably necessary to effectuate the initial purpose of the
traffic stop, and expansions of the stop beyond that
time are constitutionally impermissible in the absence
of an independent basis of objectively reasonable, arti-
culable suspicion. See, e.g., United States v. White, 584
F.3d 935, 949 (10th Cir. 2009), cert. denied,
U.S.
,
130 S. Ct. 1721, 176 L. Ed. 2d 202 (2010); United States
v. Bell, supra, 555 F.3d 541; see also United States v.
Alix, 630 F. Sup. 2d 145, 157–58 (D. Mass. 2009) (forty-
five minute stop with multiple frisks and no reasonable
suspicion to believe that driver or passenger was dan-
gerous was unreasonable, particularly when their
actions did not contribute to length of stop); People v.
Burei, 391 Ill. App. 3d 1, 8–9, 908 N.E.2d 538 (2009)
(traffic stop was prolonged beyond time necessary to
issue summons for cracked windshield by continuing
to question defendant, eventually obtaining consent to
search vehicle). Moreover, judicial review of routine
traffic stops goes beyond a strict stopwatch test; reason-
ableness is not measured solely by the temporal dura-
tion of the stop alone but, rather, requires scrupulous
consideration of the reasonableness of the officers’
actions during the time of the stop. See United States
v. Peralez, 526 F.3d 1115, 1119–21 (8th Cir. 2008) (traffic
stop, while lasting only sixteen minutes, was unreason-
ably extended when questions unrelated to purpose of
stop ‘‘constituted the bulk of the interaction between
the trooper and the van’s occupants’’ and video
recording showed that ‘‘off-topic questions more than
doubled the time [the defendant] was detained’’).
A review of the Appellate Court’s opinion in the pres-
ent case indicates, then, that it did not apply the correct
legal standard, in that it relied on pre-Muehler case
law,26 and stated that, ‘‘[i]n determining if a seizure has
exceeded the scope of a permissible motor vehicle stop,
the court must determine whether the officer’s action
was justified at its inception and whether it was reason-
ably related in scope to the circumstances that justified
the interference in the first place. See State v. Carcare,
75 Conn. App. 756, 767, 818 A.2d 53 (2003); see also
United States v. Jones, 234 F.3d 234, 240–41 (5th Cir.
2000) (holding that although initial stop of defendants’
vehicle for speeding was valid, continued detention,
after completing computer check on drivers’ licenses
and rental papers revealed clean records, was unreason-
able and violated fourth amendment).27 With respect to
whether the results of the initial stop aroused further
suspicion warranting a prolonged inquiry, [t]he police
officer’s decision . . . must be based on more than a
hunch or speculation. . . . In justifying the particular
intrusion the police officer must be able to point to
specific and articulable facts which, taken together with
rational inferences from those facts, reasonably war-
rant that intrusion.’’28 (Internal quotation marks omit-
ted.) State v. Jenkins, supra, 104 Conn. App. 427; see
also id., 427–28 (‘‘the defendant’s relevant claim on
appeal relates to whether Morgan improperly expanded
the scope of the stop by questioning the defendant about
whether he was engaged in unrelated illegal activity
and then performing a search of the defendant’s person
and his car, after the initial purpose for effectuating
the stop had been achieved’’).
Applying the proper legal standard to the facts of
the present case, we conclude that Morgan did not
measurably or unreasonably prolong his traffic stop
of the defendant. In so concluding, we note that it is
undisputed that the traffic stop for unsignaled lane
changes was valid at its inception, and also that, under
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, supra, 434 U.S. 111 and n.6,
Morgan properly ordered the defendant to step out of
the car for purposes of explaining the ticket. The total
relevant duration of the stop, namely, from the time
that the defendant was pulled over until the time that
he gave his consent to the search of the Altima, was at
most fifteen minutes; indeed, the defendant was under
arrest twenty minutes from the inception of the stop.
See United States v. Rivera, supra, 570 F.3d 1013–14
(‘‘when a motorist gives consent to search his vehicle,
he necessarily consents to an extension of the traffic
stop while the search is conducted’’). Moreover, during
that fifteen minute time period prior to searching the
defendant’s Altima, Morgan engaged only in activities
that themselves related directly to the traffic stop,
namely, questioning the defendant about his travels,
checking the defendant’s license and rental agreement,
performing a warrants check and then writing the
ticket. Morgan asked only two brief off-topic questions
concerning the presence of illegalities in the vehicle or
on the defendant’s person near the end of the stop,
after explaining the ticket to the defendant, but before
giving it to him.29 Unlike the protracted questioning in
United States v. Peralez, supra, 526 F.3d 1120–21, which
dominated the encounter in that case, these two ques-
tions in the present case did not create more than a de
minimis extension of the overall stop, and therefore
were permissible under Muehler and Johnson. More-
over, Morgan did not need to delay the stop in order
to conduct the search, as Sutton, his backup officer,
arrived while he was still in the process of writing the
ticket. Accordingly, we conclude that the traffic stop
was not unreasonably prolonged and was not an illegal
detention that violated the fourth amendment.
B
Whether the Defendant’s Consent Was Voluntary
Having determined that the traffic stop itself was
not conducted in a manner that violated the fourth
amendment, we now must consider whether the defen-
dant voluntarily consented to the search of his vehicle.30
This is because the lawfulness of the defendant’s seizure
is a question different from whether the consent to
search was voluntary. See, e.g., United States v. Valen-
zuela, 494 F.3d 886, 891 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 552
U.S. 1032, 128 S. Ct. 636, 169 L. Ed. 2d 411 (2007);
Salmeron v. State, supra, 280 Ga. 739. Raising this claim
as an alternate ground upon which we may affirm the
judgment of the Appellate Court; see Practice Book
§ 84-11 (a);31 the defendant contends that his consent
to the search of his car was not free and voluntary
under the totality of the circumstances; see Schneckloth
v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 248–49, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 36
L. Ed. 2d 854 (1973); because: (1) Morgan and Sutton
behaved in a ‘‘subtly coercive’’ manner since they were
armed, the defendant was a minority from out of state
who was alone in his car, and the traffic stop took place
on a dark area of the turnpike; (2) Morgan already had
escalated the encounter by patting down the defendant
without justification; (3) neither officer informed the
defendant of his right to refuse to consent to the search;
and (4) the defendant was not free to leave because
Morgan had not yet returned his license, rental
agreement and ticket. In response, the state contends
that the trial court’s findings of fact on this issue are
not clearly erroneous—namely, that the police officers
did not act in a coercive or deceptive manner—and
further relies on the spontaneous nature of the defen-
dant’s invitation to Morgan to search his car in response
to Morgan’s question about the presence of any illegali-
ties therein. Having reviewed the record, we conclude
that the trial court properly determined that the defen-
dant’s consent was free and voluntary under the totality
of the circumstances.
‘‘A warrantless search is not unreasonable under
either the fourth amendment to the constitution of the
United States or article first, § 7, of the constitution of
Connecticut if a person with authority to do so has
freely consented to the search. . . . The state bears
the burden of proving that the consent was free and
voluntary32 . . . . The state must affirmatively estab-
lish that the consent was voluntary; mere acquiescence
to a claim of lawful authority is not enough to meet the
state’s burden. . . . The question whether consent to
a search has in fact been freely and voluntarily given,
or was the product of coercion, express or implied . . .
is a question of fact to be determined from the totality
of all the circumstances. . . . As a question of fact, it
is normally to be decided by the trial court upon the
evidence before that court together with the reasonable
inferences to be drawn from that evidence. . . . We
may reverse [the trial court’s factual] findings on appeal
only if they are clearly erroneous.’’ (Internal quotation
marks omitted.) State v. Azukas, 278 Conn. 267, 275,
897 A.2d 554 (2006). Thus, ‘‘[w]hether there was valid
consent to a search is a factual question that will not
be lightly overturned on appeal.’’33 (Internal quotation
marks omitted.) State v. Nowell, 262 Conn. 686, 699,
817 A.2d 76 (2003).
‘‘In determining whether a defendant’s will was over-
borne in a particular case, the [c]ourt has assessed the
totality of all the surrounding circumstances—both the
characteristics of the accused and the details of the
interrogation. Some of the factors taken into account
have included the youth of the accused . . . his lack
of education . . . or his low intelligence . . . the lack
of any advice to the accused of his constitutional rights
. . . the length of detention . . . the repeated and pro-
longed nature of the questioning . . . and the use of
physical punishment such as the deprivation of food or
sleep . . . .’’ (Citations omitted.) Schneckloth v. Busta-
monte, supra, 412 U.S. 226. In analyzing these factors,
the Supreme Court noted that it had ‘‘determined the
factual circumstances surrounding the confession,
assessed the psychological impact on the accused, and
evaluated the legal significance of how the accused
reacted.’’ Id.
In evaluating the voluntariness of the defendant’s
consent, we note that, ‘‘while the subject’s knowledge
of a right to refuse is a factor to be taken into account,
the prosecution is not required to demonstrate such
knowledge as a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary
consent.’’ Id., 249. The Supreme Court has emphasized
that this rule remains applicable to requests for consent
to search during traffic stops, calling it ‘‘unrealistic to
require police officers to always inform detainees that
they are free to go before a consent to search may be
deemed voluntary.’’ Ohio v. Robinette, supra, 519 U.S.
40 (following Schneckloth); see also, e.g., People v. Red-
dersen, 992 P.2d 1176, 1182–83 (Colo. 2000) (consent to
search given during ongoing traffic stop was voluntary,
despite officer’s failure to advise motorist of his right
to refuse or to give warning pursuant to Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478–79, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed.
2d 694 [1966]).
Moreover, that consent to search is given while a
defendant is being detained does not render it involun-
tary per se, as ‘‘the fact of custody alone has never been
enough in itself to demonstrate a coerced confession
or consent to search.’’ United States v. Watson, 423
U.S. 411, 424, 96 S. Ct. 820, 46 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1976); see
also id., 424–25 (The court noted that consent was given
on public street, ‘‘not in the confines of the police sta-
tion,’’ and that ‘‘[t]here was no overt act or threat of
force against [the defendant] proved or claimed. There
were no promises made to him and no indication of
more subtle forms of coercion that might flaw his judg-
ment.’’); State v. Winot, 95 Conn. App. 332, 349, 897
A.2d 115 (2006) (The defendant’s consent, given while
under arrest in the back of a police cruiser, was volun-
tary because he ‘‘does not claim to have been threatened
in any way by anyone at the scene. He has not alleged
that improper promises were made to him or that he
was subjected to any other more subtle forms of coer-
cion that might improperly have impaired his judg-
ment.’’), rev’d in part on other grounds, 294 Conn. 753,
988 A.2d 188 (2010). Thus, it is significant that the defen-
dant’s consent was obtained during a routine traffic
stop that, while not itself consensual in nature, also
was not unreasonable by fourth amendment standards;
see part II A of this opinion; which accords with the
trial court’s factual findings that ‘‘[t]here is no evidence
that the length of the stop was excessive or overbear-
ing’’ and that ‘‘[t]he defendant was never threatened
or restrained.’’
With respect to the remainder of the defendant’s
claims,34 although the officers did not inform him of his
right to refuse to consent to the search, this factor is
mitigated by the spontaneity of the defendant’s invita-
tion to Morgan to check his vehicle, in response to
Morgan’s question limited to the presence of ‘‘anything
illegal’’ in the car. The spontaneous nature of that invita-
tion, which was not given in response to a specific
request for consent to search, renders ‘‘inapposite’’ the
officers’ failure to advise the defendant of his right to
refuse to consent to the search. United States v. Brown,
563 F.3d 410, 416 (9th Cir. 2009); see also id. (‘‘[a]lthough
[the agent] admittedly did not notify [the co-occupant
of the house] that she had a right not to consent to
search, this factor is not an absolute requirement for a
finding of voluntariness . . . and also seems inappo-
site given that [the co-occupant] volunteered consent
without any prompting whatsoever’’ [citation omitted]);
United States v. Pedroza, 269 F.3d 821, 827 (7th Cir.
2001) (rejecting claim that consent was involuntary
because ‘‘[the defendant] volunteered permission for
the agents to search his home and the [vehicle] even
before the agents asked for it’’). Indeed, numerous fed-
eral and state courts have considered the spontaneity
of consent, or an invitation to search without a prior
request, as a ‘‘strong indication of [its] voluntariness.’’35
State v. Kennedy, 290 Or. 493, 504, 624 P.2d 99 (1981).
Thus, the trial court properly found significant that ‘‘it
was the defendant who told the detective to check his
vehicle upon the mere inquiry as to whether or not
there was anything illegal in his car.’’
We further disagree with the defendant’s claim that
Morgan and Sutton behaved in a ‘‘subtly coercive’’ man-
ner because they were armed, the defendant was a
minority from out of state who was alone in his car,
and the traffic stop took place on a dark area of the
turnpike. The defendant has not proffered any evidence
to contradict, or demonstrated a void of supporting
evidence, with respect to the trial court’s finding that
‘‘there was no untoward conduct on the part of either
. . . Morgan or . . . Sutton’’ and that ‘‘there was no
threatening, coercive or overpowering behavior exhib-
ited at any time during this incident.’’ The fact that the
police officers were armed with their duty sidearms
does not render the atmosphere coercive, particularly
as there is no evidence that the officers ever drew or
unholstered their weapons. See State v. Reynolds, 264
Conn. 1, 45, 836 A.2d 224 (2003) (‘‘[a]lthough the pres-
ence of drawn weapons is certainly a factor in determin-
ing voluntariness . . . it is not dispositive’’ [emphasis
added; internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied,
541 U.S. 908, 124 S. Ct. 1614, 158 L. Ed. 2d 254 (2004); see
also id., 45–46 (noting that coercive effect of displayed
weapons was mitigated by manner of interaction, which
did not involve threatening language or intrusion into
subject’s home late at night or early in morning); State
v. Boyd, 57 Conn. App. 176, 181, 749 A.2d 637 (The
presence of drawn weapons was not dispositive of the
defendant’s coercion claim because ‘‘[t]he defendant
was not greeted with a phalanx of weapons when he
opened his apartment door for the police. Rather, one
officer had his weapon drawn at the defendant’s door
while another with his weapon drawn remained at the
bottom of the apartment stairs.’’), cert. denied, 253
Conn. 912, 754 A.2d 162 (2000). Thus, viewing the total-
ity of the circumstances, we conclude that the trial
court’s determination that the defendant’s consent was
voluntary was not clearly erroneous.
C
Scope of the Defendant’s Consent
The defendant next proffers a second ground for
affirming the judgment of the Appellate Court, namely,
that the state did not prove that he actually had con-
sented to a complete search of the Altima’s passenger
compartment. Relying on Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S.
248, 111 S. Ct. 1801, 114 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1991), the defen-
dant contends that, by extensively searching his car,
Morgan exceeded the scope of his consent, which he
claims was limited only to an invitation to check for
beer on floor by the passenger seat. In response, the
state also relies on Jimeno and argues that it was objec-
tively reasonable for Morgan to construe the defen-
dant’s invitation as an actual consent to a search. We
agree with the state and conclude that it was objectively
reasonable for Morgan to interpret the defendant’s con-
sent as extending to a search of the Altima’s passenger
compartment and unlocked storage areas therein.
‘‘The standard for measuring the scope of a suspect’s
consent under the [f]ourth [a]mendment is that of
‘objective’ reasonableness—what would the typical rea-
sonable person have understood by the exchange
between the officer and the suspect?’’ Id., 251. ‘‘The
scope of a search is generally defined by its expressed
object.’’ Id. ‘‘Although objective reasonableness is a
question of law [over which our review is plenary], the
factual
circumstances
are
highly
relevant
when
determining what a reasonable person would have
believed to be the outer bounds of the consent that was
given.’’36 United States v. Mendoza-Gonzalez, 318 F.3d
663, 667 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1049, 123 S.
Ct. 2114, 155 L. Ed. 2d 1091 (2003); see also, e.g., United
States v. Rich, 992 F.2d 502, 505 (5th Cir.) (‘‘[o]bjective
reasonableness is a question of law that is reviewed de
novo’’), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 933, 114 S. Ct. 348, 126
L. Ed. 2d 312 (1993).
In Jimeno, the Supreme Court concluded that it was
‘‘reasonable for an officer to consider a suspect’s gen-
eral consent to a search of his car to include consent
to examine a paper bag lying on the floor of the car.’’
Florida v. Jimeno, supra, 500 U.S. 251. The court noted
that ‘‘the terms of the search’s authorization were sim-
ple’’ because the defendant had granted the officer ‘‘per-
mission to search his car, and did not place any explicit
limitation on the scope of the search,’’ after the officer
‘‘had informed [the defendant] that he believed [the
defendant] was carrying narcotics, and that he would
be looking for narcotics in the car. We think that it was
objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that
the general consent to search [the defendant’s] car
included consent to search containers within that car
which might bear drugs. A reasonable person may be
expected to know that narcotics are generally carried
in some form of a container.’’ Id.
Post-Jimeno case law makes clear that, on the basis
of the exchange between Morgan and the defendant,
Morgan reasonably could have understood the defen-
dant’s invitation to ‘‘check’’ the Altima as an invitation
to search the interior of the car and unlocked compart-
ments therein, including its center console. First, Mor-
gan’s question about the presence of ‘‘anything illegal’’
in the car reasonably is understood as directing the
defendant’s attention to contraband such as narcotics
or weapons, despite the fact that he did not mention
those items specifically.37 See United States v. Canipe,
569 F.3d 597, 606 (6th Cir.) (‘‘[w]hen [the investigator]
asked [the defendant] whether he had anything in his
vehicle that might be unlawful or about which he should
know, his questioning placed [the defendant] on notice
that any unlawful item would be the subject of his
search’’), cert. denied,
U.S.
, 130 S. Ct. 655, 175 L.
Ed. 2d 499 (2009); United States v. Snow, 44 F.3d 133,
135 (2d Cir. 1995) (‘‘[i]t is self-evident that a police
officer seeking general permission to search a vehicle
is looking for evidence of illegal activity’’); cf. State v.
McConnelee, 690 N.W.2d 27, 31 (Iowa 2004) (‘‘[c]onsid-
ering their conversation was limited to the nature of
the leafy substance that was in plain view, we think it
unlikely that the defendant would respond to the offi-
cer’s comments with an unsolicited invitation to the
officer to ‘search the whole car’ ’’). Moreover, a general
consent to search a vehicle ‘‘reasonably include[s] per-
mission to search any container that might have held
illegal objects.’’ United States v. Canipe, supra, 606;
see also United States v. Snow, supra, 135 (‘‘[i]t is just
as obvious that such evidence [of illegal activity] might
be hidden in closed containers’’); United States v. Har-
ris, 928 F.2d 1113, 1118 (11th Cir. 1991) (‘‘the defendant
knew the officer was looking for drugs; therefore, both
[the] defendant and the officer would reasonably inter-
pret the consent as constituting consent to search in
places where narcotics would reasonably be hidden’’);
cf. United States v. Neely, 564 F.3d 346, 351 (4th Cir.
2009) (per curiam) (containers ‘‘physically part of’’ area
to be searched are included within scope of consent,
but consent limited to trunk does not ‘‘physically
encompass the interior of [a] vehicle’’).
We further disagree with the defendant’s reliance on
the fact that Morgan ‘‘never used the word ‘search,’ ’’
in support of his argument that ‘‘it is not linguistically
and constitutionally reasonable to find that the defen-
dant actually consented to the search of his car . . . .’’
Case law, none of which is contradicted by the defen-
dant in his brief, establishes that Morgan reasonably
understood the defendant’s invitation to ‘‘check’’ the
car—made presumably in the hopes that Morgan would
see only the beer on the floor by the passenger seat
and then go on his way—as an invitation to search the
vehicle.38 See United States v. Neely, supra, 564 F.3d
350 (‘‘[b]y asking whether [the officer] would like to
‘check’ the trunk, [the defendant] consented to a search
of his trunk’’); United States v. Walker, 922 F. Sup. 724,
731 (N.D.N.Y. 1996) (concluding that defendant ‘‘first
gave permission to conduct a search when he told [the
trooper] ‘you can check the car’ while pointing at the
vehicle’’); State v. Stephens, 946 P.2d 734, 735, 737 (Utah
App. 1997) (‘‘we conclude that [the police officer] could
have reasonably believed that [the] defendant’s general
consent to ‘look’ or ‘check’ under the front seat for
weapons or drugs extended to the contents of the
leather case’’ found under front seat). Accordingly, we
conclude that Morgan did not exceed the scope of the
defendant’s consent by searching the interior of the
defendant’s Altima, including its unlocked center con-
sole compartment.
III
STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS
As his final proffered alternative ground for affirming
the judgment of the Appellate Court, the defendant pro-
vides an analysis under State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672,
684–86, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992), and contends that we
should adopt a rule, pursuant to article first, § 7, of
the Connecticut constitution;39 see footnote 2 of this
opinion; providing that, to validate a request for consent
to search made during a routine traffic stop, a police
officer must: (1) have ‘‘reasonable and articulable suspi-
cion of illegal activity’’ prior to asking for consent; and
(2) inform the motorist that he or she is free to leave
and to refuse consent.40 The defendant, supported by the
amicus curiae Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers
Association, contends that we should adopt this new
constitutional rule in order to address the psychological
pressures experienced by Connecticut citizens stopped
by the police and to provide them with heightened pro-
tection from the specter of racial profiling, pretextual
stops and other arbitrary police actions based on non-
criminal factors. In response, the state contends that
the defendant’s proposed constitutional rules are
unworkable, would vitiate the purpose of consent
searches and that existing federal constitutional protec-
tions are sufficient. The state also contends that,
because the record lacks evidence of racial profiling or
other bias, the defendant and the amicus ‘‘[ask] this
court to presume a serious impropriety’’ in devising a
new constitutional rule. We agree with the state and
conclude that article first, § 7, of the Connecticut consti-
tution does not provide criminal defendants with
greater protections than does the federal constitution in
the context of unrelated questioning, including requests
for consent to search, made during routine traffic stops.
‘‘It is well established that federal constitutional and
statutory law establishes a minimum national standard
for the exercise of individual rights and does not inhibit
state governments from affording higher levels of pro-
tection for such rights. . . . Furthermore, although we
often rely on the United States Supreme Court’s inter-
pretation of the amendments to the constitution of the
United States to delineate the boundaries of the protec-
tions provided by the constitution of Connecticut, we
have also recognized that, in some instances, our state
constitution provides protections beyond those pro-
vided by the federal constitution, as that document has
been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.
. . . The analytical framework by which we determine
whether, in any given instance, our state constitution
affords broader protection to our citizens than the fed-
eral constitutional minimum is well settled. In State v.
Geisler, [supra, 222 Conn. 684–86], we enumerated the
following six factors to be considered in determining
that issue: (1) persuasive relevant federal precedents;
(2) the text of the operative constitutional provisions;
(3) historical insights into the intent of our constitu-
tional forebears; (4) related Connecticut precedents;
(5) persuasive precedents of other state courts; and (6)
contemporary understandings of applicable economic
and sociological norms, or as otherwise described, rele-
vant public policies.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit-
ted.) State v. McKenzie-Adams, 281 Conn. 486, 509–10,
915 A.2d 822, cert. denied, 552 U.S. 888, 128 S. Ct. 248,
169 L. Ed. 2d 148 (2007).
‘‘The Geisler factors serve a dual purpose: they
encourage the raising of state constitutional issues in
a manner to which the opposing party—the state or the
defendant—can respond; and they encourage a princi-
pled development of our state constitutional jurispru-
dence. Although in Geisler we compartmentalized the
factors that should be considered in order to stress that
a systematic analysis is required, we recognize that they
may be inextricably interwoven. . . . [N]ot every
Geisler factor is relevant in all cases.’’ (Citation omit-
ted.) State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707, 716 n.10, 657 A.2d
585 (1995). Moreover, a proper Geisler analysis does
not require us simply to tally and follow the decisions
favoring one party’s state constitutional claim; a deeper
review of those decisions’ underpinnings is required
because we follow only ‘‘persuasive’’ decisions. See
Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn.
135, 240–41, 957 A.2d 407 (2008) (‘‘the state court cases
that have determined that gay persons do not constitute
a quasi-suspect class, like the federal cases described
in this part of the opinion, employed a flawed analysis,
and, therefore, they do not constitute persuasive
authority’’).
A
Operative Constitutional Text
With respect to the first Geisler factor, namely, the
operative constitutional text, we agree with the state
that the language of article first, § 7, does not support
the defendant’s claim of greater protections than are
provided under the fourth amendment. See footnotes
1 and 2 of this opinion. The state provision ‘‘closely
resembles’’ the fourth amendment; State v. Barton, 219
Conn. 529, 540, 594 A.2d 917 (1991); particularly as
‘‘both proscribe only unreasonable searches and sei-
zures.’’ State v. Dukes, supra, 209 Conn. 121; see also,
e.g., Washington v. Meachum, 238 Conn. 692, 719, 680
A.2d 262 (1996) (describing provisions as ‘‘virtually
identical’’). Although the ‘‘linguistic similarity under-
mines the defendant’s contention that the state constitu-
tion provides a greater opportunity to challenge the
legality of a search than the federal constitution’’; State
v. Davis, 283 Conn. 280, 306, 929 A.2d 278 (2007); our
inquiry does not end here, because ‘‘this court has never
considered itself bound to adopt the federal interpreta-
tion in interpreting the Connecticut constitution. Our
system of federalism requires no less. But of even
weightier concern is the authority of our state constitu-
tion, the fundamental charter of our state, and it is this
court’s duty to interpret and enforce our constitution.
Here we note that the United States Supreme Court or
its individual members have often called the attention
of state courts to their independent responsibility for
the constitutional laws of their states. Thus, in a proper
case, ‘the law of the land’ may not, in state constitutional
context, also be ‘the law of the state of Connecticut.’ ’’
State v. Dukes, supra, 113–14.
B
Connecticut and Federal Case Law
We also agree with the state that contemporary fed-
eral case law governing the police conduct during rou-
tine traffic stops; see parts II A and B of this opinion;
similarly does not support the defendant’s interpreta-
tion of the state constitution.41 With respect to Connecti-
cut case law, although we have in the past interpreted
article first, § 7, to ‘‘[afford] protections to the citizens
of this state beyond those provided by the fourth amend-
ment to the federal constitution, as that provision has
been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court’’;42
State v. Wilkins, 240 Conn. 489, 505, 692 A.2d 1233
(1997); we also have concluded that ‘‘[a]pplications of
Terry principles in the context of motor vehicle stops
are already embodied in our state constitution.’’ Id.,
508–509. Thus, in Wilkins, we determined, in accor-
dance with the United States Supreme Court’s interpre-
tation of the fourth amendment in Michigan v. Long,
463 U.S. 1032, 1049, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1201
(1983), that the state constitution permitted police offi-
cers, with reasonable and articulable suspicion that a
suspect is potentially dangerous, to conduct a limited
protective search of a motor vehicle for weapons during
a routine traffic stop. State v. Wilkins, supra, 509–11;
see also id., 501, 504 (officer acted reasonably under
state constitution by separating vehicle occupants and
detaining suspect in cruiser until backup arrived to
allow patdowns to be conducted safely); State v. Dukes,
supra, 209 Conn. 122 (following Pennsylvania v.
Mimms, supra, 434 U.S. 106, and concluding that state
constitution permits police officer to require motorist
to exit vehicle during routine traffic stop); accord State
v. Mikolinski, 256 Conn. 543, 554, 775 A.2d 274 (2001)
(‘‘sobriety checkpoints operated pursuant to neutral
criteria are permissible under article first, § 7’’); State
v. Lamme, 216 Conn. 172, 184, 579 A.2d 484 (1990)
(concluding that article first, § 9, is due process provi-
sion that does not preclude Terry stops or other deten-
tions not founded upon probable cause).
Moreover, the defendant has not identified any on
point Connecticut case law interpreting the federal con-
stitution that conflicts with the federal constitutional
principles recently articulated in Arizona v. Johnson,
supra, 129 S. Ct. 781, and Muehler v. Mena, supra, 544
U.S. 93.43 Cf. State v. Oquendo, 223 Conn. 635, 647–52,
613 A.2d 1300 (1992) (rejecting California v. Hodari
D., 499 U.S. 621, 626, 111 S. Ct. 1547, 113 L. Ed. 2d 690
[1991], and instead adhering to Connecticut precedents
defining seizure as whether reasonable person would
have felt free to leave due to restraint of movement by
physical force or show of authority). We therefore agree
with the state that Connecticut case law does not sup-
port the defendant’s arguments in support of a more
comprehensive state constitutional rule.44
C
Constitutional History
With respect to the relevant constitutional history,
we agree with the defendant that the ‘‘original 1818
state constitution predates the automobile age,’’ and
that article first, § 7, ‘‘was adopted in the automobile
age and should be interpreted to include protection
of individual citizens while in cars from the abuse of
governmental
power.’’
With
respect,
however,
to
whether the historical circumstances surrounding the
adoption of article first, § 7, support the defendant’s
claim to greater protections under that provision than
are afforded by the federal constitution, we have stated
that ‘‘[t]he declaration of rights adopted in 1818 appears
to have its antecedents in the Mississippi constitution
of 1817, which in turn derived from the federal bill of
rights and the Virginia declaration of rights of 1776.
. . . The search and seizure provision in our 1818 con-
stitution, then article first, § 8, closely resembles the
fourth amendment to the United States constitution.
Although its enumeration was changed to article first,
§ 7, when the 1965 constitution incorporated article
first, § 4, into article seventh, its language has not been
altered since its original adoption. . . . The language
of article first, § 7, which was based upon the fourth
amendment, was adopted with little debate. . . . Thus,
the circumstances surrounding the adoption of article
first, § 7, lend weight to the view that, in most cases,
a practice permitted under the fourth amendment is
permissible under article first, § 7.’’ (Citations omitted;
internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Mikolinski,
supra, 256 Conn. 548–49; see also State v. Davis, supra,
283 Conn. 316 (‘‘it reasonably may be argued that the
lack of any evidence indicating that article first, § 7,
was intended to be more broadly protective of privacy
rights than the fourth amendment gives rise to a con-
trary inference’’).
D
Sister State Case Law
The defendant relies specifically on state constitu-
tional case law from ten states, Alaska, Kansas, Massa-
chusetts,
Minnesota,
Montana,
New
Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming in
support of his argument that we should interpret article
first, § 7, to preclude, in the context of a routine traffic
stop, requests for consent to search and other ques-
tioning unrelated to the purpose of the stop.45 Only those
cases from Alaska, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wyoming warrant any
significant discussion.46
In our view, the most comprehensive and persuasive
of these cited decisions is State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632,
635, 790 A.2d 903, modified, 174 N.J. 351, 806 A.2d 798
(2002), wherein the New Jersey Supreme Court con-
cluded, under that state’s constitution, that ‘‘in order for
a consent to search a motor vehicle and its occupants
to be valid, law enforcement personnel must have a
reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal wrong-
doing prior to seeking consent to search a lawfully
stopped motor vehicle.’’ The court emphasized its long
history of elevating state constitutional protections
beyond those provided by the fourth amendment in
the area of consent searches, including its separate
requirement, in contravention of Schneckloth v. Busta-
monte, supra, 412 U.S. 248–49, that individuals give
knowing and voluntary consent to searches. State v.
Carty, supra, 639, discussing State v. Johnson, 68 N.J.
349, 354, 346 A.2d 66 (1975). Most significantly, the
New Jersey court also relied upon an extensive record
demonstrating that state police officers frequently had
utilized coercive tactics that had violated both a federal
consent decree and state police policy.47 State v. Carty,
supra, 644–45; see also id., 647 (reasonable suspicion
rule ‘‘serves the prophylactic purpose of preventing the
police from turning a routine traffic stop into a fishing
expedition for criminal activity unrelated to the stop’’).
We decline to follow Carty because the record in the
present case lacks the evidence of specific instances
of law enforcement abuses by police officers in our
jurisdiction similar to that which prompted the New
Jersey court to interpret its state constitution to provide
enhanced protections to motorists on that state’s high-
ways. See State v. Snell, 323 Mont. 157, 161, 99 P.3d
191 (2004) (declining to follow Carty because defendant
‘‘does not argue—much less establish—that Montana
law enforcement officers are abusing their authority’’).
Like the New Jersey Supreme Court, the Minnesota
Supreme Court has interpreted its state constitution
to require that officers have ‘‘reasonable, articulable
suspicion’’ of criminal activity prior to asking for con-
sent to search during a routine traffic stop. State v.
Fort, 660 N.W.2d 415, 416 (Minn. 2003). Fort, however,
is legally inapposite, because in that case, the Minnesota
court was constrained to follow its then recent prece-
dent in a dog sniff case that had interpreted both the
fourth amendment, pre-Illinois v. Caballes, supra, 543
U.S. 408–409, and the state constitution, to limit ‘‘the
scope and duration of a traffic stop investigation . . .
to the justification for the stop.’’48 State v. Fort, supra,
418; see id., 418–19, discussing State v. Wiegand, 645
N.W.2d 125, 135–37 (Minn. 2002) (requiring reasonable
and articulable suspicion of narcotics related activity
to justify exterior dog sniff of car).
Case law from the high courts of Massachusetts and
Pennsylvania is similarly restrictive, as both states also
do not permit police to inquire beyond the purpose of
a traffic stop in the absence of a reasonable suspicion
of criminal activity. The case law from these states,
however, is not persuasive because of the cursory state
constitutional analyses contained in those opinions. See
Commonwealth v. Torres, 424 Mass. 153, 158, 674
N.E.2d 638 (1997) (‘‘police inquiry in a routine traffic
stop must end on the production of a valid license and
registration unless the police have grounds for inferring
that either the operator or his passengers were involved
in the commission of a crime . . . or engaged in other
suspicious conduct’’ [internal quotation marks omit-
ted]);49 Commonwealth v. Strickler, 563 Pa. 47, 69, 757
A.2d 884 (2000) (‘‘[o]ur jurisprudence under [the Penn-
sylvania constitution], however, would not sustain a
consent search conducted in the context of, but which
is wholly unrelated in its scope to, an ongoing detention,
since there can be no constitutionally-valid detention
independently or following a traffic or similar stop
absent reasonable suspicion . . . and the scope of a
detention is circumscribed by the reasons that justify
it’’ [citation omitted]); id., 70 n.20 (‘‘[a]s noted, [Terry
v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. 1] and its progeny strongly
suggest that a traffic stop [viewed as the equivalent of
a Terry stop] is not an appropriate vehicle within which
to make inquiries about potential unlawful conduct
unrelated to the stop not supported by reasonable suspi-
cion’’).50 Indeed, we agree with a Pennsylvania appellate
court’s characterization of this point in Strickler as
dicta. See Commonwealth v. Acosta, 815 A.2d 1078, 1087
n.8 (Pa. Super.) (concluding on record that defendant’s
consent to search during traffic stop was product of
coercion and citing Strickler in dicta for proposition
that ‘‘there is some question regarding the constitution-
ality of [the police officer’s] attempt to secure [the
defendant’s] consent during the investigative deten-
tion’’), appeal denied, 576 Pa. 710, 839 A.2d 350 (2003).
In O’Boyle v. State, 117 P.3d 401, 411 (Wyo. 2005),
the Wyoming Supreme Court did not adopt a specific
rule such as that followed in State v. Carty, supra,
170 N.J. 632, but emphasized a reasonableness inquiry
influenced by local factors, specifically, the fact that
Wyoming’s ‘‘location along a nationally recognized drug
trafficking corridor likely results in a disproportionately
large percentage of Wyoming’s disproportionately small
population being subjected to what have become rou-
tine requests to relinquish their privacy rights by deten-
tion, invasive questioning and searches—all without
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity other than the
offense giving rise to the stop.’’51 Given the fact that
the defendant had not yet been placed under arrest and
there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity,
the court then concluded that the scope of the traffic
stop had been improperly expanded because he had
been detained in the cruiser during the stop and ques-
tioned extensively about his family, travel plans and
profession. O’Boyle v. State, supra, 410. Aside from
O’Boyle’s lack of a specific legal standard beyond rea-
sonableness,52 it is factually inapposite given the brief
and limited questioning that took place in this case prior
to the defendant volunteering permission for Morgan to
search the Altima.53
With respect to state constitutional decisions issued
after the United States Supreme Court’s decision in
Muehler v. Mena, supra, 544 U.S. 93, the Kansas decision
relied upon by both Justice Katz in her dissent and the
defendant, State v. Smith, 286 Kan. 402, 184 P.3d 890,
cert. denied,
U.S.
, 129 S. Ct. 628, 172 L. Ed. 2d
639 (2008), is facially on-point but, upon closer review,
ultimately lacking in persuasive value. In Smith, the
court concluded that Muehler v. Mena, supra, 100–101,
does not ‘‘[allow] law enforcement officers to expand
the scope of a traffic stop to include a search not related
to the purpose of the stop, even if a detainee has given
permission for the search. Rather, we continue to
adhere to our longstanding rule that consensual
searches during the period of a detention for a traffic
stop are invalid under the [f]ourth [a]mendment . . .
and [the state constitution].’’54 State v. Smith, supra,
419. Smith is unpersuasive because it lacks an indepen-
dent state constitutional analysis. Moreover, as noted
previously, the Kansas Supreme Court’s more recent
decision in State v. Morlock, supra, 289 Kan. 988, makes
clear that, to the extent Smith is analyzing the federal
constitution, it no longer is good law because Arizona
v. Johnson, supra, 129 S. Ct. 787–88, ‘‘eliminated any
doubt that the Muehler rationale applied to traffic
stops.’’55 See also footnote 28 of this opinion.
Finally, we find the Alaska Court of Appeals decision
in Brown v. State, 182 P.3d 624 (Alaska App. 2008), to
lack persuasive value because of a significant internal
inconsistency in the opinion. The Alaska court relied
on a comprehensive survey of academic literature and
existing case law; id., 630–32; in support of its determi-
nation that ‘‘federal law does not afford sufficient pro-
tection to motorists who are asked to consent to a
search of their person, their vehicle, or their belongings
during a traffic stop.’’56 Id., 629. The court observed
that, ‘‘because most people need to travel by car, and
because of the near-inevitability that people will commit
traffic infractions, the ‘routine’ traffic stop has become
the doorway to widespread and probing searches of
persons, vehicles, and luggage.’’ Id., 631–32. The Alaska
court then stated that ‘‘[t]he facts of this case present
an example of an apparently ongoing and unjustified
infringement of the privacy rights of Alaska citizens.
And, as we have explained here, it is uncertain whether
the [fourth amendment] offers any remedy. We there-
fore conclude that [the Alaska state constitution] must
be interpreted to grant broader protections than its
federal counterpart in situations like this.’’ Id., 633–34.
Curiously, however, the Alaska court then backpedaled
somewhat, and stated that, ‘‘we need not decide
whether [the state constitution] should be interpreted
to completely preclude requests for searches during a
routine traffic stop unless the search is related to the
ground for the stop or is otherwise supported by a
reasonable suspicion of criminality. We leave that ques-
tion for another day.’’ Id., 634. The court then held
simply that the record in Brown ‘‘present[ed] a particu-
larly egregious example of this police practice’’ because
of the trooper’s failure to inform the defendant of the
reason for the stop or its disposition prior to requesting
consent to search. Id. Justice Katz’ attempts to salvage
Brown notwithstanding, this limitation necessarily
diminishes the persuasive value of the case in support
of the defendant’s request for a specific state constitu-
tional rule in Connecticut. See also Murphy v. Anchor-
age, Alaska Court of Appeals, Docket No. A-10345, No.
5576, 2010 Alaska App. LEXIS 28, *11 (March 17, 2010)
(memorandum opinion) (noting that defendant ‘‘misin-
terprets Brown by asserting that we did adopt this
general restriction on police authority during traffic
stops’’ [emphasis in original]); Bostwick v. State, Alaska
Court of Appeals, Docket No. A-10224, No. 5569, 2010
Alaska App. LEXIS 21, *5, 7–8 (February 24, 2010)
(memorandum opinion) (describing Brown as ‘‘limited
to its facts’’ and stating that this case, which involved
‘‘far from a routine traffic stop,’’ also ‘‘does not require
us to resolve’’ issue of whether consent searches during
routine traffic stops require reasonable suspicion).
E
Economic and Sociological Factors
With respect to the relevant economic and sociologi-
cal factors, the defendant first contends that, as a practi-
cal matter, many citizens do not feel free to refuse
consent to a search during a routine traffic stop. Numer-
ous commentators, in articles revealed by our indepen-
dent research, support this assertion.57 See, e.g., S.
Chanenson, ‘‘Get the Facts, Jack! Empirical Research
and the Changing Constitutional Landscape of Consent
Searches,’’ 71 Tenn. L. Rev. 399, 451–52 (2004) (dis-
cussing study that showed that 89.3 percent of 9028
people studied granted consent to search during traffic
stops in Maryland and Ohio); W. LaFave, ‘‘The ‘Routine
Traffic Stop’ from Start to Finish: Too Much ‘Routine,’
Not Enough Fourth Amendment,’’ 102 Mich. L. Rev.
1843, 1891 (2004) (‘‘[g]uilty or innocent, most motorists
stopped and asked by police for consent to search their
vehicles will expressly give permission to search their
vehicles, resulting in thousands upon thousands of
motor vehicle searches of innocent travelers each year’’
[internal quotation marks omitted]). With respect to the
defendant’s request for a state constitutional prophylac-
tic rule requiring law enforcement officers to inform
motorists of their right to refuse, endorsed by Justice
Palmer in his dissent, even those commentators sup-
porting that position have acknowledged, however, that
warnings do not significantly reduce the rate of consent.
See S. Chanenson, supra, 466 (likening warnings to
‘‘ ‘chicken soup’ ’’ in that they cannot hurt, could help);
M. Phillips, note, ‘‘Effective Warnings Before Consent
Searches: Practical, Necessary, and Desirable,’’ 45 Am.
Crim. L. Rev. 1185, 1206–1208 (2008) (observing that
‘‘warnings would appear to be futile, as one of the fea-
tures that make them practical—their negligible effect
on the rate of consent—also make them ineffective,’’
but arguing that their administration might reduce coer-
cive or racially discriminatory atmosphere in consent
stops). We note specifically that the defendant’s request
for a rule requiring reasonable suspicion prior to seek-
ing consent to search is supported by noted Professor
Wayne R. LaFave.58 See W. LaFave, supra, 102 Mich. L.
Rev. 1893, citing State v. Fort, supra, 660 N.W.2d 415;
see also 4 W. LaFave, supra, (4th Ed. 2004) § 9.3 (e),
p. 397 (same).
The defendant and the amicus also emphasize the
‘‘national concern’’ regarding racial profiling and pre-
textual stops. The defendant cites General Statutes § 54-
1l et seq., the Alvin W. Penn Racial Profiling Prohibition
Act, which, inter alia, prohibits law enforcement offi-
cers from ‘‘engag[ing] in racial profiling’’ and provides
in relevant part that ‘‘[t]he detention of an individual
based on any noncriminal factor or combination of non-
criminal factors is inconsistent with this policy.’’59 In
response, the state argues that, beyond evidence limited
to the race of the participants—specifically, that Mor-
gan is white, and that the defendant and Sutton, the
backup officer, are African-American—there is no evi-
dence in the record that Morgan’s actions were racially
motivated. We agree with the state and emphasize that
the record does not contain any evidence whatsoever
that Morgan’s actions were racially motivated, or that
the ‘‘insidious’’ practice of racial profiling or other abu-
sive conduct by the police; State v. Donohue, 251 Conn.
636, 648 and n.11, 742 A.2d 775 (1999), cert. denied, 531
U.S. 924, 121 S. Ct. 299, 148 L. Ed. 2d 240 (2000); is
present, in Newington or statewide, let alone to the
extent that it must be remedied by the pronouncement
of a new state constitutional rule. See State v. Batts,
supra, 281 Conn. 694 (‘‘[T]he record is entirely devoid
of evidence of racial profiling. At best, the facts in the
record and reasonable inferences therefrom establish
that the defendant is African-American and [the police
officer] knew the defendant’s race before approaching
him because of his previous surveillance of the
defendant.’’).
F
Conclusion
Having performed a complete Geisler analysis of the
defendant’s state constitutional claims in this appeal,
we conclude that article first, § 7, does not provide
greater protection than does the federal constitution
with respect to consent searches during routine traffic
stops, and we decline to adopt the rules proposed by
the defendant. Our own constitutional language, prece-
dents and history do not support a ready departure
from the federal case law in this area, particularly
because the recent United States Supreme Court deci-
sions do not represent a sea change from prior Connect-
icut precedent. See State v. Oquendo, supra, 223 Conn.
647–49. Moreover, the only relevant sister state consti-
tutional decision that provides greater protection than
the fourth amendment in this context, but is written
persuasively, is State v. Carty, supra, 170 N.J. 632. That
decision, however, is founded upon a factual predicate
of local law enforcement abuses that simply does not
exist on this record, disinclining us to follow it. See
State v. Snell, supra, 323 Mont. 161 (declining to follow
Carty because defendant ‘‘does not argue—much less
establish—that Montana law enforcement officers are
abusing their authority’’); Commonwealth v. Strickler,
supra, 563 Pa. 80–81 n.28 (declining to ‘‘take judicial
notice that police employ tactics such as consent
searches on a selective, discriminatory basis against
members of protected classes, primarily on Pennsylva-
nia interstate highways used as conduits by traffickers
of illegal drugs’’ and noting that ‘‘the assertion of such
discriminatory conduct finds no support in the record
of any of the consolidated cases’’); cf. O’Boyle v. State,
supra, 117 P.3d 411–12 (adopting state constitutional
reasonableness inquiry influenced by local factors).
Lastly, although the defendant’s proposal finds some
support in the academic community, those studies do
not indicate that adoption of the defendant’s proposal
is likely to have any significant effect on protecting
motorists’ rights beyond that of a scrupulous applica-
tion of the governing federal principles. We therefore
decline to adopt a new state constitutional standard at
this time.
The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and
the case is remanded to that court with direction to
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In this opinion VERTEFEUILLE and ZARELLA, Js.,
concurred.
* The listing of the justices reflects their seniority status on this court as
of the date of oral argument.
1 ‘‘The fourth amendment to the United States constitution provides: ‘The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirma-
tion, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.’ The fourth amendment has been made applicable
to the states via the fourteenth amendment.’’ State v. Gonzalez, 278 Conn.
341, 344 n.4, 898 A.2d 149 (2006).
2 The constitution of Connecticut, article first, § 7, provides: ‘‘The people
shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unrea-
sonable searches or seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or to
seize any person or things, shall issue without describing them as nearly
as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.’’
3 We granted the state’s petition for certification limited to the following
issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that the trial court
improperly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress?’’ State v. Jenkins,
285 Conn. 909, 940 A.2d 809 (2008).
4 General Statutes § 21a-278 (b) provides: ‘‘Any person who manufactures,
distributes, sells, prescribes, dispenses, compounds, transports with the
intent to sell or dispense, possesses with the intent to sell or dispense,
offers, gives or administers toanother person any narcotic substance, halluci-
nogenic substance other than marijuana, amphetamine-type substance, or
one kilogram or more of a cannabis-type substance, except as authorized
in this chapter, and who is not, at the time of such action, a drug-dependent
person, for a first offense shall be imprisoned not less than five years or
more than twenty years; and for each subsequent offense shall be imprisoned
not less than ten years or more than twenty-five years. The execution of
the mandatory minimum sentence imposed by the provisions of this subsec-
tion shall not be suspended, except the court may suspend the execution
of such mandatory minimum sentence if at the time of the commission of
the offense (1) such person was under the age of eighteen years, or (2)
such person’s mental capacity was significantly impaired, but not so impaired
as to constitute a defense to prosecution.’’
Although § 21a-278 (b) was the subject of technical amendments in 2007;
see Public Acts 2007, No. 07-217, § 97; those amendments have no bearing
on the merits of this appeal. In the interest of simplicity, we refer to the
current revision.
5 Morgan testified that, when working traffic enforcement on the turnpike,
his regular practice is to ask the driver to exit his or her car for an explanation
of the ticket, because that enables Morgan to show the driver the amount
of traffic on the turnpike, as well as to have the driver’s full attention away
from distractions such as radios or cellular telephones. Morgan also testified
that he created a lane of safety for himself and the defendant to move
around in by parking his cruiser half in the right travel lane, and half on
the shoulder, and offsetting it from the Altima, which was parked entirely
on the shoulder.
6 Morgan did not, however, consider it unusual that the rental vehicle was
registered in a different state than its driver was licensed.
7 Morgan testified that he did not believe that the defendant was armed
at the time of the stop.
8 For additional discussion with respect to the phrasing of the defendant’s
consent, see footnote 38 of this opinion and the accompanying text.
9 We note that the defendant does not contest the propriety of this subse-
quent search of the Altima.
10 We note that § 21a-278 (b) proscribes, inter alia, both the possession
and sale of narcotics. The substitute information in the present case charged
the defendant with violations of § 21a-278 (a) and (b) on the basis of the
defendant’s alleged ‘‘[s]ale of certain illegal drugs.’’ This statement appears
to be a scrivener’s error. At no point in the proceedings before the trial
court did the state claim that the defendant had participated in the actual
sale of drugs. Additionally, we note that the judgment file in the present
case notes that the § 21a-278 (b) violation to which the defendant pleaded
nolo contendere was ‘‘[p]ossession of [n]arcotics with [i]ntent to [s]ell.’’
Accordingly, we refer to the crimes with which the defendant was charged
under § 21a-278 (a) and (b) as possession of narcotics with intent to sell
by a person who is not drug-dependent.
11 General Statutes § 54-94a provides in relevant part: ‘‘When a defendant,
prior to the commencement of trial, enters a plea of nolo contendere condi-
tional on the right to take an appeal from the court’s denial of the defendant’s
motion to suppress or motion to dismiss, the defendant after the imposition
of sentence may file an appeal within the time prescribed by law provided
a trial court has determined that a ruling on such motion to suppress or
motion to dismiss would be dispositive of the case. The issue to be consid-
ered in such an appeal shall be limited to whether it was proper for the
court to have denied the motion to suppress or the motion to dismiss. . . .’’
12 The Appellate Court also rejected the state’s claim that the record
was inadequate for appellate review with respect to whether Morgan had
returned the defendant’s ticket and paperwork to him. The court noted that
the record indicated that Morgan had not given the defendant the ticket,
and that any inadequacy on this point should be charged to the state because
it bore the burden of proof to establish the voluntariness of the defendant’s
consent at the suppression hearing. State v. Jenkins, supra, 104 Conn.
App. 430.
13 In Brown v. Illinois, supra, 422 U.S. 603, in considering whether a
confession was the fruit of the poisonous tree, or the ‘‘exploitation of an
illegal arrest,’’ the Supreme Court concluded that the ‘‘voluntariness of the
statement is a threshold requirement.’’ Id., 604. The Supreme Court then
concluded that, once the confession was determined to be voluntary, the
reviewing court then must consider other ‘‘relevant’’ factors to determine
whether taint of the police misconduct has been attenuated, including specif-
ically: (1) ‘‘[t]he temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession’’; (2)
‘‘the presence of intervening circumstances’’; and (3) ‘‘the purpose and
flagrancy of the official misconduct . . . .’’ Id., 603–604. The Brown analysis
is applicable to consents as well as statements. See State v. Cates, 202 Conn.
615, 621, 522 A.2d 788 (1987).
14 In his dissent, Judge Schaller concluded that the defendant had failed
to provide an adequate record for review of his claim that he had been
detained unlawfully because the purpose of the traffic stop already had
been effectuated. State v. Jenkins, supra, 104 Conn. App. 437. Specifically,
Judge Schaller noted that ‘‘[t]he record in the present case is similarly devoid
of certain important factors’’ with respect to ‘‘critical matters that courts
use to determine whether the purpose of a traffic stop has been completed,’’
namely, whether Morgan had returned the defendant’s license and registra-
tion, and had issued and explained the traffic citation to him. Id., 441. Noting
that the issue of when the purpose of a traffic stop has been achieved and
the stop completed is an unsettled question of law in Connecticut, and that
other jurisdictions have taken varying approaches to the legality of police
officers questioning motorists about issues unrelated to the initial stop,
Judge Schaller also determined that the defendant had inadequately briefed
the issue of whether Morgan unconstitutionally had extended the traffic
stop by not explaining in detail whether the purpose of the traffic stop had
been effectuated. Id., 441–49. Judge Schaller then rejected the defendant’s
other claims on appeal, namely, that: ‘‘(1) [E]ven if his consent had been
voluntary, it was tainted by a prior unconstitutional search of his person,
(2) the state failed to establish that he actually consented to the search of
the vehicle, (3) any consent to search was not given voluntarily and (4) any
consent to search was obtained by a violation of the Connecticut constitution
by the police improperly converting a traffic stop into a criminal investiga-
tion.’’ Id., 450.
15 As noted previously, Morgan was the only witness to testify at the
suppression hearing. On cross-examination, while exploring the circum-
stances of the defendant’s consent to search the Altima, the defendant asked
Morgan whether he had searched the defendant. Morgan replied in the
affirmative, and further testified that he did not find anything illegal on the
defendant’s person. After further testimony about the search of the Altima,
Morgan testified during recross-examination, in response to a question from
the defendant asking why Morgan had searched his person: ‘‘I asked him
if he had anything illegal on him and he said no, and I checked.’’ Morgan
then testified that he had not believed that the defendant was armed at the
time. This was the only testimony about the patdown adduced during the
suppression hearing.
16 At oral argument before the trial court, the defendant mentioned the
patdown in an effort to distinguish this case from State v. Story, 53 Conn.
App. 733, 741, 732 A.2d 785, cert. denied, 251 Conn. 901, 738 A.2d 1093
(1999), by noting, for purposes of whether the defendant was free to leave
at the conclusion of the stop, that the present case had a patdown, whereas
Story did not.
17 Having reviewed the defendant’s briefs to the Appellate Court, we deem
the Appellate Court’s description of his arguments an accurate representa-
tion of the claims that he made therein.
18 For its part, upon receipt of the defendant’s brief, the state moved for
permission to file a late motion for rectification, seeking to include in the
record Morgan’s police report, which was mentioned, but not admitted as
an exhibit at the suppression hearing. The state claimed that the report
indicated that the patdown was proper because it had been invited by
the defendant himself. The Appellate Court denied the state’s motion for
permission to file a late motion for rectification, and subsequently denied
the state’s motion for reconsideration en banc of that denial.
19 We noted that, other than the testimony that the defendant’s mother
had refused to sign the consent form, the defendant had ‘‘presented no other
evidence on the issue. Because the mother’s actions relating to the consent
to search were not at issue at the suppression hearing—the defendant had
claimed only that his father had not given valid consent to search and, in
fact, expressly had indicated that the mother’s consent was not necessary—
the state had no reason to present any evidence regarding the mother’s
consent or lack thereof, and, consequently, it did not do so. As a result, we
simply do not know any of the other circumstances surrounding the mother’s
refusal to sign the consent to search form.’’ (Emphasis altered.) State v.
Brunetti, supra, 279 Conn. 57–58.
20 In so concluding, we relied on State v. Medina, supra, 228 Conn. 300–302,
wherein this court ‘‘declined to review an unpreserved constitutional claim
regarding the alleged involuntariness of the confession of the defendant
. . . because the record was inadequate for review.’’ State v. Brunetti, supra,
279 Conn. 60. We emphasized that in Medina the defendant’s claim in the
trial court, namely, that his confession was not knowing and voluntary
because he had not received Miranda warnings, arose from a different
factual predicate than his state constitutional claims on appeal, ‘‘namely,
that his confession was involuntary due to his impaired mental state.’’ Id.
We further emphasized that the defendant’s failure in Medina to raise that
claim deprived the state of the opportunity to litigate against it, and left us
without the ‘‘ ‘benefit of a complete factual inquiry into [the defendant’s]
mental condition at the time his statements were made.’ ’’ Id., quoting State
v. Medina, supra, 300.
21 See, e.g., United States v. Jahkur, 409 F. Sup. 2d 28, 31–32 (D. Mass.
2005); State v. Caraveo, 222 Ariz. 228, 233, 213 P.3d 377 (App. 2009).
22 We note that the state contends, in its brief, that Terry restrictions are
inapplicable to the routine traffic stop in the present case because Morgan
had probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a traffic
violation. Indeed, the state notes that, the provisions of General Statutes
§ 51-164o (b) notwithstanding, the defendant constitutionally could have
been subjected to custodial arrest for the minor traffic offense; Atwater v.
Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354, 121 S. Ct. 1536, 149 L. Ed. 2d 549 (2001); and,
because he was not placed under arrest, Morgan was not required to inform
the defendant of his right to remain silent. At oral argument before this court,
the state cited Arizona v. Johnson, supra, 129 S. Ct. 781, and acknowledged,
however, that in the absence of an arrest, the police cannot detain a stopped
motorist indefinitely. This is consistent with the well established general
proposition that an automobile stop occasioned by a traffic violation is more
akin to a Terry stop than a custodial arrest, and is, therefore, governed by
Terry principles, even when the police officer has probable cause to believe
that the motorist has violated a traffic law. See, e.g., id., 786; United States
v. Bell, 555 F.3d 535, 539–40 (6th Cir.), cert. denied,
U.S.
, 129 S. Ct.
2887, 174 L. Ed. 2d 595 (2009). But see United States v. Childs, 277 F.3d
947, 953 (7th Cir.) (en banc) (‘‘[A]lthough traffic stops usually proceed like
Terry stops, the [c]onstitution does not require this equation. Probable cause
makes all the difference . . . .’’ [Citation omitted.]), cert. denied, 537 U.S.
829, 123 S. Ct. 126, 154 L. Ed. 2d 43 (2002); D. Moran, ‘‘Traffic Stops, Littering
Tickets, and Police Warnings: The Case for a Fourth Amendment Non-
Custodial Arrest Doctrine,’’ 37 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1143, 1149–50 (2000)
(arguing that traffic stops do not fit into three delineated fourth amendment
categories of investigative stops, custodial arrests or consensual encounters,
and that ‘‘[t]his tripartite categorization has resulted in strained, and ulti-
mately erroneous, efforts in both the federal and state courts to categorize
traffic violation stops as Terry stops’’).
23 In Muehler v. Mena, supra, 544 U.S. 95, 100, an action brought under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 wherein the plaintiff had alleged that the police violated
her fourth amendment rights by handcuffing her for several hours during
the execution of a search warrant on her home, the Supreme Court concluded
that the police had not violated the fourth amendment ‘‘by questioning her
about her immigration status during the detention.’’ The court emphasized
that the questioning was not a ‘‘discrete [f]ourth [a]mendment event,’’ and
stated that ‘‘mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure.’’ (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) Id., 101. The court further concluded that, because
the detention was not ‘‘prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional
seizure within the meaning of the [f]ourth [a]mendment. Hence, the officers
did not need reasonable suspicion to ask [the plaintiff] for her name, date
and place of birth, or immigration status.’’ Id. Relying on Illinois v. Caballes,
543 U.S. 405, 125 S. Ct. 834, 160 L. Ed. 2d 842 (2005), which had upheld the
use of a narcotics-sniffing dog during a routine traffic stop, the court further
emphasized that the key constitutional inquiry remained the duration of the
detention; so long as the questioning did not extend the time of detention,
it did not require an independent fourth amendment justification. Muehler
v. Mena, supra, 101.
24 Although the majority opinion in Ohio v. Robinette, supra, 519 U.S. 35,
39–40, was cast in terms of voluntariness, and concluded that a ‘‘lawfully
seized’’ defendant need not be informed that he is ‘‘free to go’’ before a
consent to search during a routine traffic stop will be deemed voluntary, it
necessarily must be read, given its statement that the defendant was subject
to a seizure at the time of being questioned; id., 35; as permitting such brief,
incidental questioning during the course of a routine traffic stop. We note,
however, that in his dissent, Justice Stevens attacked the underlying predi-
cate of the majority’s determination, namely, that the defendant was ‘‘law-
fully seized.’’ Id., 49. Specifically, Justice Stevens concluded that the
defendant had been detained because he would not have felt free to leave
at the time that the officer asked him for consent to search, primarily because
the ‘‘question itself sought an answer ‘before you get gone.’ ’’ (Emphasis
added.) Id., 47. Justice Stevens also determined that, ‘‘by the time [the
defendant] was asked for consent to search his automobile, the lawful traffic
stop had come to an end; [he] had been given his warning, and the speeding
violation provided no further justification for detention. The continued
detention was therefore only justifiable, if at all, on some other grounds.’’
Id., 50. Justice Stevens then concluded that, because there was no reasonable
suspicion to justify a further detention, ‘‘[the officer’s] continued detention
of [the defendant] constituted an illegal seizure.’’ Id., 50–51.
25 Cases on point released subsequent to Muehler v. Mena, supra, 544 U.S.
93, but prior to Arizona v. Johnson, supra, 129 S. Ct. 781, are similarly
illustrative. See United States v. Turvin, supra, 517 F.3d 1101–1102 (noting
that fourteen minute period from commencement of stop until consent was
obtained was ‘‘no longer than an ordinary traffic stop could reasonably
take,’’ and that ‘‘brief pauses to ask questions during traffic stops, even if
those questions are unrelated to the purpose of the stop, may be permissible
under Muehler’’); United States v. Valenzuela, 494 F.3d 886, 890 (10th Cir.)
(officer properly asked defendant about presence of ‘‘ ‘weapons or other
illegal items,’ ’’ as well as for permission to search, because questioning was
simple and ‘‘did not appreciably lengthen the duration of the stop’’), cert.
denied, 552 U.S. 1032, 128 S. Ct. 636, 169 L. Ed. 2d 411 (2007); United States
v. Hernandez, 418 F.3d 1206, 1209 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005) (‘‘it is unreasonable
extensions of the duration—not the scope of conversation—that could ren-
der an otherwise justified detention unreasonable for [f]ourth [a]mendment
purposes’’), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 889, 127 S. Ct. 303, 166 L. Ed. 2d 155
(2006); United States v. Bowers, 490 F. Sup. 2d 285, 291–92 (D. Conn.
2007) (police officer reasonably asked about presence of illegalities and for
consent to search in seat belt violation stop that lasted less than ten minutes);
Salmeron v. State, supra, 280 Ga. 736 (following Muehler and concluding
that request for consent to search during valid traffic stop does not violate
fourth amendment so long as stop is not unreasonably prolonged); State v.
Washington, supra, 898 N.E.2d 1203, 1205 (with no claim of excessive delay,
police officer properly questioned moped driver about whether he had drugs
on him, and then asked him for permission to search after he admitted
having ‘‘dime bags’’); Ellis v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 220, 228, 662
S.E.2d 640 (2008) (‘‘[t]he brief, incremental delay caused by the officer’s
questions regarding drugs did not violate the [f]ourth [a]mendment and, a
fortiori, did not constitute an exploitive basis for securing [the defendant’s]
consent’’); accord People v. Harris, 228 Ill. 2d 222, 237, 886 N.E.2d 947
(2008) (‘‘a warrant check on the occupants of a lawfully stopped vehicle
does not violate fourth amendment rights, so long as the duration of the
stop is not unnecessarily prolonged for the purpose of conducting the check
and the stop is otherwise executed in a reasonable manner’’ [internal quota-
tion marks omitted]). But see State v. Smith, 286 Kan. 402, 419, 184 P.3d
890 (concluding that Muehler did not alter ‘‘the rules regarding the limited
scope of a Terry stop’’ or permit ‘‘law enforcement officers to expand the
scope of a traffic stop to include a search not related to the purpose of the
stop’’), cert. denied,
U.S.
, 129 S. Ct. 628, 172 L. Ed. 2d 639 (2008);
State v. Duran, 138 N.M. 414, 424, 120 P.3d 836 (2005) (concluding that
travel plan questions are permissible under fourth amendment rule that ‘‘all
questions asked by police officers during a traffic stop must be . . . reason-
ably related to the initial justification for the stop or are supported by
reasonable suspicion’’); State v. Rivera, 384 S.C. 356, 362, 682 S.E.2d 307
(App. 2009) (The court concluded that, once the officer had decided that
he would issue a warning citation, the purpose of the traffic stop had
ended, and ‘‘continued questioning concerning the transport of drugs on
the interstate exceeded the scope of the stop. This amounted to a second
and illegal detention unless [the officer] entertained a reasonable suspicion
of illegal activity to warrant that detention.’’); see also footnotes 28 and 54
of this opinion and the accompanying text.
Other jurisdictions had concluded similarly under the fourth amendment
even prior to the publication of Muehler. See United States v. Childs, 277
F.3d 947, 953–54 (7th Cir.) (en banc) (‘‘[b]y asking one question about
marijuana, [the] officer . . . did not make the custody of [the defendant
passenger during a traffic stop] an ‘unreasonable’ seizure,’’ particularly given
existence of probable cause to suspect traffic violation, which meant that
‘‘neither the driver nor [the defendant] had a right to be released the instant
the steps to check license, registration, and outstanding warrants, and to
write a ticket, had been completed’’), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 829, 123 S. Ct.
126, 154 L. Ed. 2d 43 (2002); United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 437
(5th Cir. 1993) (The court rejected a challenge to police questioning and a
request for consent to search that ‘‘occurred while the officers were waiting
for the results of the computer check. Therefore, the questioning did nothing
to extend the duration of the initial, valid seizure.’’); State v. Kremen, 754
A.2d 964, 967–68 (Me. 2000) (reasonable suspicion was not required to justify
questioning and request to search vehicle during lawful traffic stop), cert.
denied, 531 U.S. 1079, 121 S. Ct. 777, 148 L. Ed. 2d 675 (2001); State v. Snell,
323 Mont. 157, 161, 99 P.3d 191 (2004) (same); State v. Akuba, 686 N.W.2d
406, 415 (S.D. 2004) (‘‘[a]n officer does not impermissibly expand the scope
of a traffic stop merely by asking the driver questions, even if the subject
of the questioning is unrelated to the original purpose of the stop, as long
as the questioning does not unduly extend the duration of the initial, valid
seizure’’); State v. Gaulrapp, 207 Wis. 2d 600, 609, 558 N.W.2d 696 (App.
1996) (police officer did not impermissibly lengthen duration of traffic stop
by asking one question about presence of drugs or weapons and then
requesting consent to search); accord Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54, 65–66
(Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (noting that fourth amendment does not prescribe
‘‘particular order’’ for conducting traffic stop and it was not unreasonable
for officer to wait for results of warrant check, despite fact that he had
dispelled original basis for stop by determining that defendant was not intox-
icated).
26 Prior to the United States Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Muehler v.
Mena, supra, 544 U.S. 100–101, some federal and state jurisdictions had
interpreted Terry to mean that questioning must be limited to the purpose
of the traffic stop, and could not be extended beyond that purpose without
either consent or an independent basis of reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity, which might well have been yielded by permissible and reasonable
inquiries about travel plans. In so concluding, these courts relied on the
United States Supreme Court’s statement in Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S.
19–20, that the determination of whether a seizure and search pursuant to
a Terry stop were reasonable ‘‘is a dual one—whether the officer’s action
was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope
to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.’’ See
United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215, 1228 (10th Cir. 2001) (en banc); Caldwell
v. State, 780 A.2d 1037, 1045–46 (Del. 2001) (decision based on federal
constitution); People v. Gonzalez, 204 Ill. 2d 220, 235–36, 789 N.E.2d 260
(2003) (adopting reasonableness analysis under federal and state constitu-
tions to determine whether police conduct altered fundamental nature of
stop), overruled by People v. Harris, 228 Ill. 2d 222, 240, 886 N.E.2d 947
(2008); State v. McKinnon-Andrews, 151 N.H. 19, 25–27, 846 A.2d 1198 (2004)
(concluding accordingly under both federal and state constitutions); People
v. Banks, 85 N.Y.2d 558, 562–63, 650 N.E.2d 833, 626 N.Y.S.2d 986 (unclear
whether holding is based on federal or state constitution), cert. denied, 516
U.S. 868, 116 S. Ct. 187, 133 L. Ed. 2d 124 (1995); Commonwealth v. Strickler,
563 Pa. 47, 70–71 n.20, 757 A.2d 884 (2000) (‘‘Terry . . . and its progeny
strongly suggest that a traffic stop [viewed as the equivalent of a Terry
stop] is not an appropriate vehicle within which to make inquiries about
potential unlawful conduct unrelated to the stop not supported by reasonable
suspicion’’); State v. Hansen, 63 P.3d 650, 660 (Utah 2002) (federal constitu-
tion); O’Boyle v. State, 117 P.3d 401, 415–16 (Wyo. 2005) (federal constitu-
tion). We note that a post-Muehler case relied on extensively by the defendant
holds similarly. See State v. Smith, 286 Kan. 402, 419, 184 P.3d 890 (conclud-
ing that Muehler did not alter ‘‘the rules regarding the limited scope of a
Terry stop’’ or ‘‘[allow] law enforcement officers to expand the scope of a
traffic stop to include a search not related to the purpose of the stop’’),
cert. denied,
U.S.
, 129 S. Ct. 628, 172 L. Ed. 2d 639 (2008). Finally,
other jurisdictions, including Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wyoming, also had held similarly under their
state constitutions. See part III D of this opinion.
Particularly in light of Arizona v. Johnson, supra, 129 S. Ct. 787–88, we
agree with the Illinois Supreme Court’s observation that this more restrictive
type of fourth amendment analysis has, with respect to the federal constitu-
tion, been ‘‘unequivocally overruled by’’ the holding of Muehler. See People
v. Harris, supra, 228 Ill. 2d 240; see also United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano,
441 F.3d 1252, 1258 (10th Cir. 2006) (‘‘[a]lthough Holt held that further
questioning is justifiable only if it is reasonable in relation to the initial
purpose of the traffic stop . . . the scope of this holding has been limited
by the Supreme Court’s decision in Muehler’’ [citation omitted]); United
States v. Turvin, supra, 517 F.3d 1099–1100 (noting that Muehler had ‘‘over-
ruled’’ Ninth Circuit case law ‘‘that required police officers to have reason-
able suspicion to ask questions beyond the scope of a traffic stop’’); People
v. Harris, supra, 244 (emphasizing that duration remains the ‘‘sole focus of
the scope inquiry’’ and ‘‘overrul[ing] Gonzalez to the extent that it holds
that the reasonableness of a traffic stop must be judged not only by its
duration, but by the additional criterion of whether the actions of the officer
alter the fundamental nature of the stop’’); State v. Morlock, supra, 218 P.3d
807–808 (explaining, in contradiction to State v. Smith, supra, 286 Kan.
419, that ‘‘Johnson therefore also confirmed that an officer’s inquiries into
matters unrelated to the justification for the stop did not necessarily require
reasonable suspicion’’ and ‘‘eliminated any doubt that the Muehler rationale
applied to traffic stops’’).
27 Indeed, the cited portions of United States v. Jones, supra, 234 F.3d
234, the Fifth Circuit decision that was relied upon by the Appellate Court
and also cited by the defendant in his brief in this certified appeal, appear
to be inconsistent with that court’s subsequent en banc opinion in United
States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 2004). In Jones, after receiving
word that the computer checks revealed that the defendants had clean
records, the officer spent three minutes reiterating previously asked ques-
tions prior to asking for consent to search, despite the fact that the warning
citation had been prepared and needed only the driver’s signature for the
stop to be complete. United States v. Jones, supra, 240–41. The court con-
cluded that ‘‘the basis for the stop was essentially completed when the
dispatcher notified the officers about the defendants’ clean records, three
minutes before the officers sought consent to search the vehicle.’’ Id., 241.
The court concluded that the failure to issue the citation and allow the
defendants to leave violated the fourth amendment. Id.
In Brigham, the en banc Fifth Circuit noted, however, that police officers
could question a motorist on any subject during a traffic stop; United States
v. Brigham, supra, 382 F.3d 508; emphasized that ‘‘there is . . . no constitu-
tional stopwatch on traffic stops’’; id., 511; and, noting the fourth amendment
touchstone of reasonableness, declined to impose a particular sequence or
constitutionally mandated protocol on questioning and computer checks
during traffic stops. Id.; see also Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54, 66 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2004) (rejecting challenge to traffic stop based on officer’s running of
warrant check after already having determined that driver was not intoxi-
cated, because fourth amendment reasonableness does not ‘‘require rigid
adherence to ‘the least intrusive means’ of investigation defined by Monday-
morning reviewing courts’’).
28 The Appellate Court also noted that, in State v. Story, 53 Conn. App.
733, 741, 732 A.2d 785, cert. denied, 251 Conn. 901, 738 A.2d 1093 (1999),
it had ‘‘concluded that a police officer’s request for consent to search on
the basis of nothing more than a hunch was not improper because the officer
did not request the consent to search until after the stop had concluded
and the defendant was free to leave at the time of the request. Mindful of
Story, if we now sanction arbitrary requests for consent searches by the
police prior to the conclusion of a stop, we effectively close the door on
a criminal defendant’s ability ever to contest the validity of a consent to
search during a motor vehicle stop.’’ (Emphasis in original.) State v. Jenkins,
supra, 104 Conn. App. 431–32. We disagree with the Appellate Court’s predic-
tion, in that, post-Arizona v. Johnson, supra, 129 S. Ct. 787–88, a defendant
still may challenge the overall duration of a traffic stop as unreasonable
under the circumstances, as well as make an analytically separate claim
with respect to the voluntariness of his consent to search.
29 We note that several courts have held the timing of the questioning or
requests for consent to have independent constitutional significance, and
have emphasized that questioning after discrete events such as the issuance
of a ticket or warning, or the return of a driver’s paperwork, may create a
detention distinct from the initial stop, which then would require indepen-
dent justification such as consent or reasonable suspicion. Put differently,
these courts conclude that the return of the paperwork marks the end of the
initial traffic stop, and determining the consensual nature of the subsequent
interaction requires analysis of whether the driver reasonably would have
felt free to leave under United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100
S. Ct. 1870, 64 L. Ed. 2d 497 (1980). See State v. Ferris, 355 Md. 356, 364,
378–79, 735 A.2d 491 (1999) (concluding that officer improperly subjected
motorist to second seizure when, after handing him ticket and returning his
license, he asked him to step out of car at night on shoulder of highway to
answer questions about use and possession of narcotics without first advis-
ing him that he was free to depart); accord State v. Story, 53 Conn. App.
733, 745–47, 732 A.2d 785 (Hennessy, J., dissenting) (concluding that traffic
stop had ended after trooper returned defendant’s identification and issued
ticket, and that request for defendant and passenger to exit car, answer
questions and consent to car search amounted to separate seizure not justi-
fied by reasonable suspicion), cert. denied, 251 Conn. 901, 738 A.2d 1093
(1999); see also People v. Banks, 85 N.Y.2d 558, 562, 650 N.E.2d 833, 626
N.Y.S.2d 986 (‘‘once [the trooper’s] license and stolen vehicle radio check
came back negative and he prepared the traffic tickets for the seat belt
violations, the initial justification for seizing and detaining [the] defendant
and [the driver] was exhausted,’’ and retention of their licenses pending
arrival of backup officer was illegal seizure without independent justifica-
tion), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 868, 116 S. Ct. 187, 133 L. Ed. 2d 124 (1995);
People v. Rainey, 49 App. Div. 3d 1337, 1339, 853 N.Y.S.2d 807 (The court
held that Banks was not controlling ‘‘because, in [Banks], the driver of the
vehicle had been detained after he was issued traffic tickets. Here, the
[t]rooper testified that he had not given the driver a traffic ticket before
backup arrived, and there was no evidence to the contrary.’’), appeal denied,
10 N.Y.3d 963, 893 N.E.2d 453, 863 N.Y.S.2d 147 (2008). We need not, however,
determine in this appeal whether any of these events, alone or in some
combination, terminate a traffic stop as a matter of law because there is
no evidence that Morgan returned the license, rental papers and infraction
ticket to the defendant; thus, the factual predicate of this appeal is an ongoing
traffic stop, and the relevant legal inquiry is whether it was measurably or
unreasonably extended.
30 Because we conclude that the defendant was not subjected to an illegal
seizure, we need not consider whether the evidence taken from the consent
search was the fruit of the poisonous tree subject to the attenuation analysis
of Brown v. Illinois, supra, 422 U.S. 603–604. See, e.g., State v. Nowell, 262
Conn. 686, 700, 817 A.2d 76 (2003). We consider only whether the defendant’s
consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
31 Practice Book § 84-11 (a) provides in relevant part: ‘‘Upon the granting
of certification, the appellee may present for review alternative grounds
upon which the judgment may be affirmed provided those grounds were
raised and briefed in the appellate court. . . . If such alternative grounds
for affirmation or adverse rulings or decisions to be considered in the event
of a new trial were not raised in the appellate court, the party seeking to
raise them in the supreme court must move for special permission to do
so prior to the filing of that party’s brief. Such permission will be granted
only in exceptional cases where the interests of justice so require.’’ The
state acknowledges that the defendant raised these claims properly before
the Appellate Court, and we may, therefore, review them without special per-
mission.
32 We note that the state had the burden of proving the voluntariness of
the consent to the search by a preponderance of the evidence. See United
States v. Isiofia, 370 F.3d 226, 230 (2d Cir. 2004); State v. Ortiz, 17 Conn.
App. 102, 103, 550 A.2d 22 (per curiam), cert. denied, 209 Conn. 828, 552
A.2d 1216 (1988); accord State v. Lawrence, 282 Conn. 141, 177, 920 A.2d
236 (2007) (state and federal constitutions require ‘‘the state to prove the
voluntariness of a confession by a preponderance of the evidence, rather
than by proof beyond a reasonable doubt’’).
33 Relying on Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 116 S. Ct. 1657, 134
L. Ed. 2d 911 (1996), the defendant contends that we should engage in de
novo review of the trial court’s determination about the voluntariness of
his consent. In Ornelas, the Supreme Court concluded that, ‘‘as a general
matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should
be reviewed de novo on appeal. Having said this, we hasten to point out
that a reviewing court should take care both to review findings of historical
fact only for clear error and to give due weight to inferences drawn from
those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers.’’ Id.,
699. The Ornelas decision is, however, limited only to appellate review of
determinations of probable cause and reasonable suspicion and, inasmuch
as the defendant has not cited any cases extending that decision to the
more subjective voluntariness determination; see Schneckloth v. Busta-
monte, supra, 412 U.S. 229 (‘‘account must be taken of subtly coercive police
questions, as well as the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person
who consents’’); we continue to apply the clearly erroneous standard of
review to trial courts’ determinations with respect to the voluntariness of
consents to search.
34 As noted previously, we decline to consider the defendant’s second
proffered ground for finding his consent involuntary, namely, that Morgan
already had escalated the encounter by patting down the defendant without
justification. See part I of this opinion.
35 See also, e.g., United States v. Walker, 922 F. Sup. 724, 727 (N.D.N.Y.
1996) (noting that defendant’s ‘‘original consent to search the vehicle was
spontaneous, unsolicited, and without any indication that it was produced
by coercion’’); State v. Sullivan, 49 S.W.3d 800, 812 and n.8 (Mo. App.
2001) (consent was voluntary when defendant responded to question of her
knowledge of narcotics investigation by stating that police officer could
search her car); State v. Lowe, 135 N.M. 520, 525, 90 P.3d 539 (App.) (taint
attenuated from illegal detention when defendant volunteered spontane-
ously to permit officer to search her car), cert. quashed, 103 P.3d 1098
(N.M. 2004).
36 But see United States v. Canipe, 569 F.3d 597, 604 (6th Cir.) (applying
clearly erroneous standard of review to District Court’s determination that
search did not exceed scope of consent), cert. denied,
U.S.
, 130 S. Ct.
655, 175 L. Ed. 2d 499 (2009); United States v. Gutierrez-Mederos, 965 F.2d
800, 803 (9th Cir. 1992) (same), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 932, 113 S. Ct. 1315,
122 L. Ed. 2d 702 (1993).
37 We disagree with the defendant’s reliance on United States v. Isiofia,
370 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2004), in support of his argument that Morgan exceeded
the scope of the consent by not elaborating about the nature of the contra-
band that he inquired about. Isiofia is inapposite, because the issue in that
case was voluntariness and the court concluded on appeal that the District
Court, in conducting a totality of the circumstances analysis to determine
whether the defendant had voluntarily given his consent, properly consid-
ered as a factor the agents’ failure to inform the defendant of the type of
evidence they expected to seize or the crime they expected to charge. See
id., 233–34. Isiofia does not involve a claim that the officers had exceeded
the scope of consent that was given.
38 Relying on Morgan’s testimony during cross-examination that he did
not record in his report the specific words used by the defendant, the
defendant argues that the trial court committed clear error when it found
that the exact words of his consent were ‘‘go ahead and check. You can
check if you want.’’ We disagree. Morgan’s testimony on cross-examination,
while acknowledging that he did not quote the defendant verbatim in his
report, nevertheless does not contradict Morgan’s earlier statements that
the defendant had invited him to ‘‘check’’ the car.
In any event, we note that courts have concluded that other words synony-
mous with ‘‘check’’ also have the legal effect of a request to ‘‘search.’’ See
United States v. Canipe, supra, 569 F.3d 604 (defendant’s ‘‘consent to let
the officers ‘look in’ his truck ‘would be understood by most people to
involve a search’ of the vehicle, not merely permission to peer through its
windows’’); United States v. Mendoza-Gonzalez, supra, 318 F.3d 667–68
(rejecting defendant’s argument that ‘‘a reasonable person would have
assumed he had consented to only a quick look inside of the trailer, rather
than a search of the containers within, because this is what [the border
patrol agent] had . . . literally requested,’’ because ‘‘it is established law
. . . that a request to ‘look in’ a vehicle is the equivalent of a request for
general consent to search’’); United States v. Rich, supra, 992 F.2d 506
(officer’s request to ‘‘ ‘have a look in’ ’’ vehicle is proper request for permis-
sion to search because ‘‘any words, when viewed in context, that objectively
communicate to a reasonable individual that the officer is requesting permis-
sion to examine the vehicle and its contents constitute a valid search
request’’); State v. Stephens, 946 P.2d 734, 735, 737 (Utah App. 1997) (‘‘we
conclude that [the police officer] could have reasonably believed that [the]
defendant’s general consent to ‘look’ or ‘check’ under the front seat for
weapons or drugs extended to the contents of the leather case’’ found under
front seat).
39 The defendant also relies upon article first, § 9, of the Connecticut
constitution, which provides: ‘‘No person shall be arrested, detained or
punished, except in cases clearly warranted by law.’’ We agree with the
state that the defendant’s reliance on this section is, in essence, superfluous,
because, in the search and seizure context, article first, § 9, is our criminal
due process provision that does not provide protections greater than those
afforded by either the fourth amendment or its coordinate specific state
constitutional provision, article first, § 7. See State v. Lamme, 216 Conn.
172, 184, 579 A.2d 484 (1990) (article first, § 9, does not preclude Terry
stops or other detentions not founded upon probable cause); see also State
v. Oquendo, 223 Conn. 635, 669 n.1, 613 A.2d 1300 (1992) (Borden, J.,
dissenting) (‘‘Article first, § 7, is, of course, our state counterpart to the
federal fourth amendment. Article first, § 9 . . . is our criminal due process
clause, and has not generally been regarded as adding significantly to search
and seizure analysis.’’ [Internal quotation marks omitted.]).
40 The defendant also asks for a requirement that the state prove, at a
subsequent suppression hearing, the voluntariness of the consent by a height-
ened standard of proof. The defendant’s analysis of this particular request
is, however, limited to a sentence supported by a footnote citing three cases,
State v. Hight, 146 N.H. 746, 781 A.2d 11 (2001), State v. Johnson, 68 N.J.
349, 346 A.2d 66 (1975), and State v. Ibarra, 953 S.W.2d 242 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1997). Of these three cases, only Ibarra mentions the standard of proof
applicable at a suppression hearing. The paucity of analysis with respect
to this element of the defendant’s proposed rule renders it inadequately
briefed, and we decline to consider further this portion of the defendant’s
claim because the evidentiary standard applicable in a suppression hearing
to determine the voluntariness of consent is a question deserving of its own
analysis under State v. Geisler, supra, 222 Conn. 684–86. Compare State v.
Akuba, 686 N.W.2d 406, 412 (S.D. 2004) (‘‘[M]ost courts no longer require
clear and convincing evidence. Today we conform our burden of proof to
that used by the United States Supreme Court and the [United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit]. They hold that ‘in deciding whether
a consent was voluntary, courts should require the prosecution to prove
voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence.’ ’’), with State v. Ibarra,
supra, 243–45 (rejecting state’s claim that state constitutional standard
should be changed from clear and convincing evidence to conform with
federal preponderance of evidence standard). See also State v. Lawrence,
282 Conn. 141, 177, 920 A.2d 236 (2007) (state constitution requires ‘‘the
state to prove the voluntariness of a confession by a preponderance of the
evidence, rather than by proof beyond a reasonable doubt’’).
41 In their dissents, neither Justice Katz nor Justice Palmer disputes our
conclusion under Arizona v. Johnson, supra, 129 S. Ct. 781, and Muehler
v. Mena, supra, 544 U.S. 93, ‘‘that recent federal precedent suggests that
the permissibility of a consent search following a routine traffic stop is
dictated by the duration of the stop.’’ Justice Katz does, however, posit
that this ‘‘holding constitutes a substantive departure from settled fourth
amendment jurisprudence,’’ which requires the scope of the investigation
during a Terry stop to be ‘‘carefully tailored to its underlying justification
. . . .’’ Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229
(1983). Justice Katz’ critique of this recent body of federal case law is not
without support. See, e.g., 4 W. LaFave, supra, (4th Ed. 2004) § 9.3 (d), p.
391 (‘‘[t]he correct rule is that . . . in strict accordance with Terry and its
progeny, questioning during a traffic stop must be limited to the purpose
of the traffic stop and thus may not be extended to the subject of drugs’’).
Nevertheless, until the United States Supreme Court concludes otherwise,
we deem the body of case law discussed in part II B of this opinion to be
dispositive of both the defendant’s federal constitutional claims and the
federal factor of the Geisler analysis.
42 See, e.g., State v. Miller, 227 Conn. 363, 386–87, 630 A.2d 1315 (1993) (‘‘a
warrantless automobile search supported by probable cause, but conducted
after the automobile has been impounded at the police station, violates
article first, § 7’’); State v. Oquendo, 223 Conn. 635, 647–53, 613 A.2d 1300
(1992) (rejecting California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626, 111 S. Ct. 1547,
113 L. Ed. 2d 690 [1991], and instead adhering to Connecticut precedents
defining seizure as whether reasonable person would have felt free to leave
due to restraint of movement by physical force or show of authority); State
v. Geisler, supra, 222 Conn. 676, 690 (rejecting New York v. Harris, 495 U.S.
14, 21, 110 S. Ct. 1640, 109 L. Ed. 2d 13 [1990], and concluding that ‘‘the
exclusionary rule under article first, § 7 requires that evidence derived from
an unlawful warrantless entry into the home be excluded unless the taint
of the illegal entry is attenuated by the passage of time or intervening
circumstances’’); State v. Marsala, 216 Conn. 150, 171, 579 A.2d 58 (1990)
(rejecting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 920, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L.
Ed. 2d 677 [1984], and concluding that article first, § 7, does not have good
faith exception for invalid warrants); accord State v. Joyce, 229 Conn. 10,
15, 639 A.2d 1007 (1994) (concluding that warrantless chemical analysis of
defendant’s clothing left at fire scene violated article first, § 7). But see State
v. Johnson, 286 Conn. 427, 443–50, 944 A.2d 297 (rejecting claim that article
first, § 7, requires stricter standard than totality of circumstances for
assessing probable cause for warrantless arrests based on informant’s tips),
cert. denied,
U.S.
, 129 S. Ct. 236, 172 L. Ed. 2d 144 (2008); State v.
Davis, supra, 283 Conn. 323–24 (following federal ‘‘ ‘reasonable expectation
of privacy’ ’’ standard and declining to adopt automatic standing rule under
article first, § 7); State v. Trine, 236 Conn. 216, 234, 673 A.2d 1098 (1996)
(following federal ‘‘plain feel’’ doctrine and concluding that ‘‘article first,
§ 7 does not categorically bar a police officer from seizing, without a warrant,
nonthreatening contraband that the officer feels during a lawful patdown
search’’); State v. DeFusco, 224 Conn. 627, 639, 620 A.2d 746 (1993) (war-
rantless police searches of curbside garbage containers are permissible
under article first, § 7, because defendant lacks reasonable expectation of
privacy therein); State v. Barton, supra, 219 Conn. 543–45 (overruling State
v. Kimbro, 197 Conn. 219, 496 A.2d 498 [1985], which had adopted former
federal Aguilar-Spinelli test; see Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S. Ct.
1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1964), Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.
Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969); for scrutiny of search warrant applications
based on confidential informants’ tips pursuant to article first, § 7, in favor
of current federal ‘‘ ‘totality of the circumstances’ ’’ standard under Illinois
v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 [1983]).
43 Justice Katz cites to several of this court’s decisions, namely, State v.
Wilkins, supra, 240 Conn. 508, State v. Lamme, supra, 216 Conn. 184, State
v. Edwards, 214 Conn. 57, 72, 570 A.2d 193 (1990), and State v. Carter,
189 Conn. 611, 618, 458 A.2d 369 (1983), in support of the unremarkable
proposition that, ‘‘under our state constitution, a Terry stop must be both
justified at inception and reasonably circumscribed.’’ (Emphasis added.)
The dissent does not, however, point to any Connecticut case law definitively
indicating that brief off-the-topic questioning, which does not measurably
extend the length of the Terry detention, is per se unreasonable under our
state constitution. Cf. State v. Edwards, supra, 73 (declining to ‘‘[extend] a
Terry stop to include transporting a suspect to a police station for open
ended questioning’’).
44 The defendant cites State v. Conger, 183 Conn. 386, 439 A.2d 381 (1981),
in support of the proposition that the present case differs from State v.
Wilkins, supra, 240 Conn. 509–11, and State v. Dukes, supra, 209 Conn.
104–106, because in the present case, officer safety was not an issue, and
the defendant was not under arrest at the time of the request for consent
to search. In State v. Conger, supra, 387, 391, this court concluded that the
defendant, who sought to contest the legality of his stop while driving a
stolen truck, had standing to raise a fourth amendment claim, because ‘‘[t]he
defendant, as an occupant of the truck, has an interest in continuing his
travels without government intrusion. Thus his fourth amendment rights
could have been violated by the stopping of the truck even though the truck
was stolen.’’ In our view, Conger does not support the defendant’s argument
because it does not consider the propriety of the traffic stop itself under
either the federal or state constitutions.
45 The defendant also relies on sister state case law interpreting the federal
constitution, as well as some decisions applying state statutes restricting
the scope of traffic stops. To the extent that the case law interprets the
federal constitution, it, like those federal decisions preceding Muehler v.
Mena, supra, 544 U.S. 93, and Arizona v. Johnson, supra, 129 S. Ct. 781,
lacks current persuasive value for purposes of this Geisler analysis. See
Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, supra, 289 Conn. 240–41.
46 The defendant’s reliance on case law from Montana, Vermont and Wash-
ington is misplaced because the cited cases do not stand for the proposition
that those states have implemented increased state constitutional protec-
tions in the area of consent searches. With respect to Montana, the defendant
cites State v. Hill, 322 Mont. 165, 94 P.3d 752 (2004). Putting aside the
distinction that consent was sought after the trooper had acted to end the
stop by returning the defendant’s paperwork and telling him that ‘‘ ‘we’re
done’ ’’; id., 168; Hill does not hold that Montana’s constitution provides
motorists in that state with enhanced state constitutional protections. Id.,
170; see also id., 174 (defendant lacks reasonable expectation of privacy in
unlawfully possessed rental vehicle). Indeed, the Montana Supreme Court
issued a decision subsequent to Hill holding to the contrary. See State v.
Snell, 323 Mont. 157, 161, 99 P.3d 191 (2004) (‘‘It is undisputed that [the
officer] had particularized suspicion to stop [the defendant’s] vehicle. Mon-
tana law does not require additional justification for requesting consent.’’).
Similarly, State v. Cunningham, 183 Vt. 401, 954 A.2d 1290 (2008), also
does not stand for the proposition that the Vermont constitution provides
greater protection to motorists during routine traffic stops than does the
fourth amendment with respect to the scope of questioning or requests for
consent to search. In Cunningham, the court merely held unreasonable
under the state constitution the detention, not supported by reasonable
suspicion, of a motorist for forty-six minutes pending the arrival of a drug-
sniffing dog, after the motorist had refused to give officers consent to search
his car. Id., 405, 415–16; see also id., 415 n.6 (emphasizing that court did
not adopt ‘‘bright-line canine-response timing rule,’’ and also that it did not
need to consider vitality of Illinois v. Caballes, supra, 543 U.S. 409–10, under
state constitution because, unlike in Caballes, arrival of drug-sniffing dog
in Cunningham measurably prolonged duration of stop).
Finally, the defendant relies on State v. Glossbrener, 146 Wash. 2d 670,
49 P.3d 128 (2002), in support of the proposition that Washington has a
state constitutional rule restricting the scope and duration of routine traffic
stops to the initial purpose of the stop, in the absence of an independent
basis of reasonable suspicion to justify further investigation. The defendant’s
reliance on Glossbrener is, however, misplaced; Washington does in fact
have such a rule, but it is statutory, and not constitutional. Id., 676–77; see
Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 46.61.021 (2) (West 2005) (‘‘[w]henever any person
is stopped for a traffic infraction, the officer may detain that person for
a reasonable period of time necessary to identify the person, check for
outstanding warrants, check the status of the person’s license, insurance
identification card, and the vehicle’s registration, and complete and issue
a notice of traffic infraction’’). Second, Glossbrener was not a consent search
case but, rather, implicated the limitations of a safety-based protective frisk
of a stopped motor vehicle’s passenger compartment. State v. Glossbrener,
supra, 679–81.
47 The court further emphasized that 95 percent of detained motorists
from whom consent was sought had agreed to searches of their vehicles,
but that only 20 percent of those searches yielded any contraband, which
‘‘undermined’’ the court’s confidence in the ‘‘effectiveness of roadside con-
sents as a law enforcement technique . . . .’’ State v. Carty, supra, 170
N.J. 645.
48 Contrary to Justice Katz’ assertion, we do not suggest that State v. Fort,
supra, 660 N.W.2d 416, is in any way ‘‘undermined’’ by Illinois v. Caballes,
supra, 543 U.S. 408–409, at least not as a matter of Minnesota state constitu-
tional law. Rather, we view Fort as having limited persuasive value with
respect to our Connecticut state constitutional inquiry because, in Fort,
the Minnesota Supreme Court was constrained to follow relevant recent
precedent under its state constitution, namely, State v. Wiegand, supra, 645
N.W.2d 135–37. In contrast, our state constitutional jurisprudential landscape
lacks an analytically dispositive precedent like Wiegand. See part III B of
this opinion.
49 The lack of an independent state constitutional analysis makes Com-
monwealth v. Torres, supra, 424 Mass. 153, particularly difficult to rely upon,
especially given the fact that the motions to suppress at issue were founded
upon both the fourth amendment and the Massachusetts constitution. Id.,
154. But see Commonwealth v. Gonsalves, 429 Mass. 658, 662–63, 711 N.E.2d
108 (1999) (characterizing Torres as state constitutional decision and relying
on it in rejecting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, supra, 434 U.S. 111, and precluding
police officers from requiring motorists to exit their vehicles without ‘‘rea-
sonable belief’’ of danger to officer or others).
50 In Commonwealth v. Strickler, supra, 563 Pa. 47, the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court sought to apply the United States Supreme Court’s then
recent decision in Ohio v. Robinette, supra, 519 U.S. 33. In Strickler, the
court concluded that the encounter in that case, which had occurred after
the officer had returned the defendant’s license to him, thanked him for his
cooperation, and decided not to cite him for public urination on the side of
the road; Commonwealth v. Strickler, supra, 53; was not itself a subsequent
seizure despite the officer’s failure to inform the defendant specifically that
he was free to leave because, inter alia, the officer did not act coercively
and had informed the defendant that he was not required to consent to the
search. Id., 76–78. The court then applied a similar analysis to determine
that the defendant’s consent to the search was voluntary. Id., 79–80. Prior
to performing these analyses, the court emphasized its adoption of ‘‘an
interpretation of [Robinette] which allows for the possibility of a mere
encounter following a traffic stop or similar detention . . . .’’ Id., 72. The
court noted, in dicta, that the Supreme Court’s decision in Robinette reason-
ably could be read ‘‘as deeming all circumstances connected with the overall
encounter [therein] to reflect a single, albeit constitutionally-permissible
detention,’’ thus validating the request for consent to search in the Supreme
Court case, which had been decided solely on voluntariness grounds. Id.,
69. The Pennsylvania court noted, however, that this view of the detention
would not comport with its understanding of Terry stops under the state
constitution. Id., 69–70.
51 We find misplaced the defendant’s reliance on another Wyoming case,
Garvin v. State, 172 P.3d 725 (Wyo. 2007). Garvin does not establish an
elevated state constitutional standard or develop the analysis of O’Boyle
v. State, supra, 117 P.3d 411–12. Indeed, any such discussion would be
superfluous because the analysis in Garvin focused solely on the court’s
record based legal determination that a state trooper had reasonable suspi-
cion to detain a motorist pending the arrival of a drug-sniffing dog. See
Garvin v. State, supra, 729–30.
52 Our independent research has revealed three other states, Indiana, New
Hampshire and Tennessee, that utilize, in essence, reasonableness standards
under their state constitutions in this context. For example, in State v.
Washington, supra, 898 N.E.2d 1202–1203, the defendant claimed that a
police officer had violated the fourth amendment and the Indiana constitu-
tion by questioning the defendant during a routine traffic stop about whether
he had weapons or drugs on his person. After rejecting the defendant’s
federal constitutional claims; see id., 1205; the Indiana Supreme Court noted
that ‘‘[t]he determination of the reasonableness of a search and seizure
under the Indiana [c]onstitution turns ‘on a balance of: 1) the degree of
concern, suspicion, or knowledge that a violation has occurred, 2) the degree
of intrusion the method of search or seizure imposes on the citizen’s ordinary
activities, and 3) the extent of law enforcement needs.’ ’’ Id., 1206, quoting
Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356, 361 (Ind. 2005). The court then applied
those factors to conclude that the initial stop of the defendant was appro-
priate because the officer had observed the defendant commit multiple
traffic violations, ‘‘the degree of police intrusion was slight’’ because the
‘‘officer merely asked the defendant a brief question, one that not only asked
if he had drugs, but also if he had weapons or other items that may harm
the officer,’’ and the ‘‘question to the defendant was consistent with the
officer’s concern for his own safety and law enforcement’s responsibilities to
deter crime, to intercept criminal activity, and to apprehend its perpetrators.’’
State v. Washington, supra, 1206. Thus, the court concluded that ‘‘[t]he
officer’s question whether the defendant held contraband on his person,
notwithstanding the absence of reasonable suspicion, was not unreasonable
under the totality of the circumstances and did not violate . . . the Indiana
[c]onstitution.’’ Id., 1208.
Similarly, in State v. McKinnon-Andrews, 151 N.H. 19, 25, 846 A.2d 1198
(2004), the New Hampshire Supreme Court adopted a tripartite test to
determine whether the Terry scope requirement has been exceeded in the
context of a traffic stop, and evaluated ‘‘whether: (1) the question is reason-
ably related to the initial justification for the stop; (2) the law enforcement
officer had a reasonable articulable suspicion that would justify the question;
and (3) in light of all the circumstances, the question impermissibly pro-
longed the detention or changed its fundamental nature.’’ The court noted
that, ‘‘[i]f the question is reasonably related to the purpose of the stop, no
[constitutional] violation occurs. If the question is not reasonably related
to the purpose of the stop, we must consider whether the law enforcement
officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that would justify the ques-
tion. If the question is so justified, no [constitutional] violation occurs. In
the absence of a reasonable connection to the purpose of the stop or a
reasonable, articulable suspicion, we must consider whether in light of all
the circumstances and common sense, the question impermissibly prolonged
the detention or changed the fundamental nature of the stop.’’ (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) Id. Indeed, the New Hampshire Supreme Court
specifically has declined to adopt the rule of State v. Carty, supra, 170 N.J.
632, requiring requests for consent to search to be justified by a reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity. See State v. Carbo, 151 N.H. 550, 552, 864
A.2d 344 (2004).
Finally, the Tennessee Supreme Court, in State v. Cox, 171 S.W.3d 174
(Tenn. 2005), concluded that a detective properly obtained consent to search
a motorist’s vehicle and her nearby motel room during a traffic stop, empha-
sizing that the duration and scope of traffic stops are measured by the time
reasonably necessary to accomplish the traffic enforcement purpose of the
stop. Id., 179–80, 186. The court concluded that the totality of the circum-
stances test for determining the voluntariness of consent; see Schneckloth
v. Bustamonte, supra, 412 U.S. 243; provided motorists with adequate protec-
tion under the state constitution, and rejected the defendant’s request,
founded on State v. Carty, supra, 170 N.J. 632, seeking state constitutional
rules requiring the police to: (1) have reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity in order to seek a motorist’s consent to search; and (2) inform
motorists of their right to decline to consent to a search. See State v. Cox,
supra, 181–84; see also State v. Brown, 294 S.W.3d 553, 562 (Tenn. 2009)
(concluding that ‘‘[the] time, manner, and scope of [the trooper’s] investiga-
tion did not exceed the proper parameters of a traffic stop’’ when request
for consent to search was made ‘‘less than ten minutes’’ from start of stop
and occurred while waiting for license and vehicular information).
53 In relying on state constitutional case law from Arkansas and Washing-
ton requiring law enforcement officers to give warnings prior to seeking
consent to search a home in the ‘‘knock and talk’’ context; see, e.g., State
v. Brown, 356 Ark. 460, 466, 156 S.W.3d 722 (2004); State v. Ferrier, 136
Wash. 2d 103, 118–19, 960 P.2d 927 (1998); Justice Palmer quotes O’Boyle
v. State, supra, 117 P.3d 412, for the proposition that the ‘‘the standards [that
have been] . . . applied in [cases involving] premises searches—where the
individual is on his or her own premises and likely feels freer to turn law
enforcement away—[are] even more applicable in the context of roadside
vehicle searches—where the traveler has been stopped for a traffic offense
and is not free to leave.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) This observation
by the Wyoming Supreme Court is, however, inconsistent with the well
established proposition that, ‘‘[i]n contrast to an individual’s expectation of
privacy in his own home, a diminished expectation inheres with automo-
biles.’’ United States v. Cantu, 405 F.3d 1173, 1179 (10th Cir. 2005); see
also, e.g., State v. Pittman, 209 Conn. 596, 602, 553 A.2d 155 (1989) (‘‘there
is a diminished expectation of privacy in an automobile’’).
54 The court stated that, under Kansas law, during a routine traffic stop,
‘‘a law enforcement officer may request the motorist’s driver’s license, car
registration, and proof of insurance; conduct a computer check; issue a
citation; and take those steps reasonably necessary to protect officer safety.
The stop can last only as long as necessary to complete those tasks, and
those tasks must be diligently pursued. . . . If no information raising a
reasonable and articulable suspicion of illegal activity is found during the
time period necessary to perform the computer check and other tasks
incident to a traffic stop, the motorist must be allowed to leave without
further delay.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State
v. Smith, supra, 286 Kan. 410–11.
55 We note also that the federal constitutional analysis in State v. Smith,
supra, 286 Kan. 412, also is unpersuasive to the extent that it criticized the
state’s intermediate appellate court for relying on a ‘‘contemporary line of
[decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit]
in holding that the scope restrictions previously enforced in Kansas were
altered by Mena,’’ and cited three cases in support of the proposition that
‘‘some panels of the Tenth Circuit have recognized a distinction between
the permissibility of asking questions on any topic and of conducting a
search based upon a question like ‘may I search?’ In these cases, even though
the Tenth Circuit panels allowed questions outside the purpose of a traffic
stop, they held the searches were not constitutionally permissible.’’ (Empha-
sis added.) See also id., 419 (criticizing Tenth Circuit panels for failing to
explain why rule requiring return of license and completion of stop remains
in effect).
We respectfully disagree with the Kansas court’s reading of the cases
upon which it relied in support of its conclusion that the Tenth Circuit’s
bright line rule requiring the return of a driver’s documents and the comple-
tion of the stop in order for a consent to be valid, could not be squared
with the more expansive view of questioning and requests for consent to
search followed subsequent to Mena. First, in United States v. Valenzuela,
supra, 494 F.3d 890–91 and n.2, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the District
Court properly had denied the defendant’s motion to suppress because a
detective did not violate the defendant’s fourth amendment rights by asking
him about the presence of weapons ‘‘ ‘or other illegal items’ ’’ in his vehicle,
and then ‘‘[asking] for consent to search,’’ since that questioning ‘‘did not
appreciably lengthen the duration of the stop.’’ The court rejected the defen-
dant’s reliance on the bright-line rule, noting that it pertained only to volun-
tariness and that ‘‘the validity of [the] [d]efendant’s consent to search is not
at issue in this case.’’ Id., 891. Second, in United States v. Yeomans, 211
Fed. Appx. 753, 758 (10th Cir.) (unpublished opinion), cert. denied, 550 U.S.
948, 127 S. Ct. 2282, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1115 (2007), the Tenth Circuit noted that
the failure to return the driver’s documents meant only that the officer’s
interaction with the driver and the defendant, his passenger, ‘‘never became
consensual’’ and ‘‘when the questioning about drugs occurred, and [the
defendant and the driver] consented to a search of their car, the traffic stop
continued to be a detention, not a consensual encounter.’’ The court then
concluded that the District Court had properly denied the defendant’s motion
to suppress, because it determined that ‘‘questioning about drugs did not
unreasonably extend the detention, and therefore did not violate the [f]ourth
[a]mendment.’’ Id., 759. Finally, in United States v. Guerrero-Espinoza, 462
F.3d 1302, 1308 n.6 (10th Cir. 2006), which appears to be sui generis because
of its facts, the court emphasized that Mena did not apply because the trooper
already had ended the traffic stop by returning the driver’s documents and
speeding warning to him while they sat in the cruiser away from the defen-
dant, a passenger in the stopped car. The court then concluded that, because
the defendant was not aware that the stop was over since those events had
taken place out of his presence, he would not have felt free to leave, thus
rendering his consent involuntary. Id., 1309–10.
56 The decision in Brown describes the state’s defense of the consent
search during the routine traffic stop in that case as ‘‘eminently defensible
under federal law,’’ including Muehler v. Mena, supra, 544 U.S. 100–101.
Brown v. State, supra, 182 P.3d 628–29; see also id., 632 (‘‘the [f]ourth
[a]mendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, and as
applied by various federal circuit courts and state courts, offers little protec-
tion to motorists in this situation’’).
57 It also has been argued that requests for consent searches in the context
of routine traffic stops should be deemed a practice that is impermissible
per se, particularly given the perceived ineffectiveness of warnings. See C.
Lassiter, ‘‘Eliminating Consent from the Lexicon of Traffic Stop Interroga-
tions,’’ 27 Cap. U. L. Rev. 79, 133–34 (1998) (discussing ineffectiveness of
warnings in preventing involuntary consent, particularly by uncounseled
motorists, and stating that ‘‘voluntary uncounseled consent to search and
seizure which would lead to the discovery of self-incriminating evidence
strains faith in the law’’). But see B. Lawrence, note, ‘‘The Scope of Police
Questioning During a Routine Traffic Stop: Do Questions Outside the Scope
of the Original Justification for the Stop Create Impermissible Seizures if
they do not Prolong the Stop?,’’ 30 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1919, 1948 (2003)
(supporting constitutionality of questioning and requests for consent to
search that do not prolong traffic stops because ‘‘the state interest in drug
interdiction outweighs the minimal privacy interest’’ implicated by ques-
tioning).
58 We note that Professor LaFave has been highly critical of the United
States Supreme Court’s recent Terry and traffic stop jurisprudence, in partic-
ular criticizing the drug dog case, Illinois v. Caballes, supra, 543 U.S. 405,
upon which the subsequent decisions in Muehler v. Mena, supra, 544 U.S.
93, and Arizona v. Johnson, supra, 129 S. Ct. 781, are founded, as ‘‘ill-
considered’’; 4 W. LaFave, supra, (2009–2010 Sup.) § 9.3, p. 94; see also, e.g.,
id., pp. 77–78 (describing Caballes as significant departure from prior Terry
precedents limiting scope of stop).
59 General Statutes § 54-1l provides: ‘‘(a) This section and section 54-1m
shall be known as the ‘Alvin W. Penn Racial Profiling Prohibition Act’.
‘‘(b) For the purposes of this section, ‘racial profiling’ means the detention,
interdiction or other disparate treatment of an individual solely on the basis
of the racial or ethnic status of such individual.
‘‘(c) No member of the Division of State Police within the Department
of Public Safety, a municipal police department or any other law enforcement
agency shall engage in racial profiling. The detention of an individual based
on any noncriminal factor or combination of noncriminal factors is inconsis-
tent with this policy.
‘‘(d) The race or ethnicity of an individual shall not be the sole factor in
determining the existence of probable cause to place in custody or arrest
an individual or in constituting a reasonable and articulable suspicion that
an offense has been or is being committed so as to justify the detention of
an individual or the investigatory stop of a motor vehicle.’’