CT: No justification for welfare check entry; and then they waited an hour to enter

The trial court erroneously held that there was an objective basis for finding probable cause to enter defendant’s apartment for a welfare check. There wasn’t. There had been an altercation in the laundry room. The fact his car was parked there and he didn’t answer the door means as likely he wasn’t home. The hour-long wait to enter belies exigency, too. State v. Curet, 2020 Conn. App. LEXIS 262 (Sept. 8, 2020):

The facts found by the court do not provide an objective basis for the police to have concluded that they had probable cause to enter the defendant’s apartment. First, as previously stated, Zulali knew that two men entered the building, that an altercation ensued, and that the two men who entered the building had subsequently exited it without entering the defendant’s apartment. No evidence existed that a third party had been involved in the alleged altercation. Second, the altercation occurred in the laundry room. Additionally, evidence of the altercation, including the knife, the flip flop sandal, shell casings, bullet holes, and the blood like stain, all were found in the laundry room. Third, during Cruz’ 911 call, he stated to the operator that he did not believe the residents of the defendant’s apartment were inside the apartment at that time. Fourth, there was limited evidence that directly pertained to the defendant’s apartment, including pry marks and paint chips near the defendant’s apartment door and Zulali’s admission that the door to the defendant’s apartment was locked. Thus, there was no reasonable basis to conclude that any activity deriving from the altercation between the two men had occurred in the defendant’s apartment. Accepting these facts, it is unlikely that an objectively reasonable officer would conclude that he or she had probable cause to enter the defendant’s apartment.