CT: Trial court’s failure to specify basis for decision on abandonment was chargeable to the defendant

The trial court’s conclusion that the defendant abandoned the car by flight when he was stopped and thereby waived any reasonable expectation of privacy in the car was susceptible to two interpretations: privacy interest in the contents v. possessory interest in the contents. It was his responsibility to provide a clear appellate record for review. Defendant didn’t so he loses. State v. Payne, 121 Conn. App. 308, 996 A.2d 302 (2010), appeal denied by State v. Payne, 297 Conn. 919, 2010 Conn. LEXIS 261 (2010).* [Does it actually matter? Should it? Both the majority and the concurring opinion find the distinction important, but differ on application.] In footnote 3 of the majority opinion:

FN3 In the present case, the court did not determine whether the defendant expected privacy in the invaded area. The concurring opinion reasons that this omission is inconsequential because “that line of inquiry need not be addressed if any such expectation held by the defendant is objectively unreasonable.” Thus, the concurring opinion, reviewing a trial court decision that is devoid of a proper factual analysis of the claim, disposes of the claim on purely constitutional grounds. Even if we were to assume that the court’s analysis of abandonment properly was rooted in fourth amendment principles, as opposed to property law, it is patently unclear whether the trial court applied the doctrine of abandonment because it found that the defendant did not expect privacy in the automobile or its contents at the time of the search or whether the court applied the doctrine because it concluded as a matter of law that the defendant’s subjective expectation of privacy was not objectively reasonable.

[Query to complicate it more: If the driver flees from the car with the keys and locks the car, has he retained the reasonable expectation of privacy in the car? What about the locked trunk? Should flight always be a waiver of privacy in the car? A car registered to the accused with locks (locked or not) is far different than a packet of drugs or a bag or a gun. It is a far more significant container. After alleged abandonment, the car may be towed and impounded, but the towing company and the police will attempt to reunite the defendant with the car. Of course, the prosecutor will attempt to reunite the defendant and the contraband in court for criminal liability. Should a car be treated differently?]