Court to Decide if a Conn. State Police Cruiser's Spotlight Can Detain Person

HARTFORD, CT — When a car is parked in a dark area of a store's parking lot at night and a police cruiser parks 40 to 50 feet away, facing the side of the car, and shines a spotlight on it, is the car's driver free to leave?

That is one of the key issues that will be debated before three state Appellate Court judges Wednesday when they meet at Classical Magnet School in Hartford for oral arguments by lawyers in two cases currently before the court.

Students at the school will be in the audience as part of the court's "on circuit" program, designed to expose them to the legal process.

The parking lot encounter is at issue in the case against Nicolas A. Marciano, now 28, of Cedar Swamp Road in Mansfield, who was arrested in the parking lot of the Cumberland Farms store at the intersection of Routes 44 and 195 in Mansfield on May 9, 2022.

When the case was in state Superior Court in Vernon last year, Judge Corinne L. Klatt agreed with Marciano's lawyer that he was not free to leave after two state troopers shined a spotlight on his car.

The judge also found that the troopers lacked "reasonable and articulable suspicion" to detain Marciano, as required by a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

As a result, the judge ruled that the evidence that Marciano was operating the car under the influence of alcohol, which the troopers began to find seconds after shining the spotlight, could not go before a jury.

Because prosecutors were unable to prove their case without that evidence, they asked the judge to dismiss the case and permit them to appeal her decision, which she did.

Parts of a video taken by Trooper Brandon Godwin's body-worn camera were introduced into evidence during the hearing before Klatt on April 21, 2023, on the admissibility of the evidence from the investigation.

'Pinned in place' by lights

"The video demonstrates that the 'takedown lights' spotlighted the defendant and vehicle in an intimidating fashion," Klatt wrote in her decision. "The defendant was effectively pinned in place by the lights. There was no question that the lights were coming from a clearly marked police cruiser.

"Within seconds, an armed police officer was approaching the defendant," signaling with his flashlight to roll down the window, the judge continued. "These actions clearly communicate to an individual: 'Do not leave because I want to speak with you.'

"It is completely understandable from a police perspective that 'takedown lights' are necessary for officer safety," the judge wrote. "However, the court's analysis must be from the perspective of the receiving end of that action. That is whether a reasonable person under those circumstances would feel free to leave."

Many courts around the country have reached a different conclusion when confronted with similar issues, however.

In his appeal brief, prosecutor Robert J. Scheinblum cited 16 decisions in which courts have held that shining spotlights or flashlights at people in or out of vehicles did not constitute detention. He cited two other cases in which courts did find detention, but in both cases police cruisers blocked a vehicle's path while shining spotlights at it.

Public defender Nicole Van Lear cited a number of decisions on use of lights in her brief as well. But at least 10 of the cases she cited involved use of "emergency lights," rather than spotlights.

Sheinblum wrote in his reply brief that courts have recognized "a critical distinction between the way an ordinary citizen would react to a police car's overhead red and blue emergency lights as opposed to a police car's spotlights."

Godbout testified at the hearing before Klatt that he approached the car in the Cumberland Farms lot "just for any possibilities regarding medical concerns," according to a transcript of the hearing available in court records.

Police were 'community caretaking?'

As a result, the prosecutor argued, the troopers' approach to the car was part of their "community caretaking" function, not part of a criminal investigation covered by court decisions on detaining people.

But Klatt found that the circumstances did not warrant a conclusion that the troopers' approach to the car was community caretaking.

"There was nothing about how the vehicle was parked to indicate worry or concern," she wrote. "There were no complaints regarding that vehicle, no reports of criminal activity or accidents. There was nothing readily observable about the vehicle itself, i.e., no flashers, hood extended, etc., that would render a belief that the operator needed assistance.

"The video evidence revealed the defendant, who was seated upright, look toward the cruiser once the 'takedown lights' illuminated him," she continued.

As Godwin approached the car, the judge found, he was "turning his flashlight in a circular motion, signaling the driver to roll down his window."

Marciano responded by turning on the car "attempting to roll down the window," she continued. "When the window did not function, the individual partially opened the driver's side door."

Once the trooper reached the open door, the judge wrote, he smelled alcohol, noticed that Marciano's speech was slurred and asked Marciano to get out of the car "so that he could perform certain tests."

Past Connecticut Supreme Court decisions have held that a drunken person sitting in the driver's seat of a stationary vehicle with the key in the ignition is operating the vehicle under the influence.

The judge wrote that Marciano's act of turning on the vehicle to comply with the trooper's order "forms the basis for the element of operation" in the OUI charge against him.

Whether that is a proper basis for such a charge was not an issue touched on by her decision and is not an issue in the appeal. But it could come up later if the Appellate Court revives the case.

___

Visit Journal Inquirer, Manchester, Conn. at www.journalinquirer.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.