CT: Adding “Miranda” to a consent argument changed the nature of the argument on appeal

Defendant was found to have consented to a search of his apartment. On appeal, he changed it to a claim that it was a violation of Miranda to get consent, but there is no record of that claim having been presented and ruled on. On plain error review, it is denied. State v. Burgos, 2017 Conn. App. LEXIS 26 (Feb. 7, 2017)

Because defendant was not illegally detained, suppression of his statements given to the detectives during the course of their investigation on the basis that they were fruit of an illegal arrest was not warranted; his presence at the police station was voluntary and became a custodial arrest only after there was probable cause to suspect he murdered his roommate following a detective’s interview with a witness. Although this was a “question first, warn later” interrogation, defendant was warned before the third one and that made this one independent. People v. Soto, 2017 IL App (1st) 140893, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 39 (Jan. 31, 2017).*