{"id":2473,"date":"2008-12-24T06:17:19","date_gmt":"2008-09-20T18:04:37","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-09-20T18:04:37","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2473","title":{"rendered":"CT: Arrest in living room permitted SI of nearby kitchen counter 6-8′ away"},"content":{"rendered":"

Search incident of the kitchen counter 6-8′ from him when defendant was arrested face down on the living room floor was reasonable. State v. Williams<\/a>, 110 Conn. App. 329, 954 A.2d 878 (2008):<\/p>\n

The defendant argues that under the circumstances of this case, the kitchen counter was not within his immediate control because there was little or no probability that he could have launched an attack on the police from his position face down and handcuffed in the living room. This argument has been rejected under more dubious circumstances. See State v. Fletcher<\/em>, 63 Conn. App. 476, 481-82, 777 A.2d 691 (valid search incident to arrest when police handcuffed defendant, then opened closet four feet next to where he was standing, moved pile of clothing to reveal floorboards, removed floorboards themselves and discovered hidden cavity containing contraband), cert. denied<\/em>, 257 Conn. 902, 776 A.2d 1152 (2001). The defendant’s argument seems to suggest that it was impossible for him to reach the kitchen counter from his location in the living room. The record and common sense suggest otherwise.<\/p>\n

The defendant’s apartment had an open area between the kitchen and the living room. The kitchen counter where Setzer searched was located six to eight feet from where the defendant was sitting. The short distance between the defendant and the kitchen counter, coupled with the contraband’s location in a cup on top of the counter, does not allow us to conclude that it would have been impossible for the defendant to have reached items located in the area Setzer searched. Similarly, the fact that the defendant was handcuffed does not foreclose the possibility that he might have been able to reach a weapon located close by. See id., <\/em>482. Accordingly, we conclude that the court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant’s search was a true parole search with information from a phone call corroborated by the PO. Micheau v. State<\/a>, 2008 Ind. App. LEXIS 2029 (September 16, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2473","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2473","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2473"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2473\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2473"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2473"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2473"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}