Page 42 - CLT032221

42 ¦ MARCH 22, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

U.S. DISTRICT COURT A search warrant was executed at defendant’s
apartment based on a sworn affidavit signed
by two police officers. As a result of the
search, defendant was charged with firearms
CRIMINAL APPEALS and narcotics trafficking charges. Defendant

Court Granted Murder-For-Hire moved to suppress the evidence seized during
the warrant. The court granted his motion
Defendant’s Request for Sentence in part. The search warrant affidavit alleged
Reduction in Light of Pandemic And that several sources of information claimed
that defendant was a convicted felon that is
Defendant’s Lack of Risk to Public Safety prohibited from owning a firearm. The affi-
davit described five pictures and four videos
CASE: United States v. Perez posted on defendant’s Instagram account, one
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut of which showed defendant pointing a fire-
DOC. NO.: 3:02cr7 arm. The affidavit alleged that the photos
COURT OPINION BY: Arterton were taken inside defendant’s apartment. De-
DATE: March 04, 2021 • PAGES: 12 fendant first argued that the affidavit did not
establish probable cause. The court disagreed,
In 2004, a jury convicted defendant of four crimes stating that one of the photos clearly showed
related to a murder, including conspiracy to commit
interstate murder for hire, and he was sentenced to
life imprisonment. Defendant moved for a reduc- defendant pointing a gun at close range di-
tion of his sentence to credit for time served in light rectly into the camera. It reasoned that the
of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court granted his allegations in the affidavit clearly established
motion. Defendant argued that his medical condi- that a search of defendant’s apartment would
tions, including obesity, hypertension, sleep apnea, probably reveal evidence of his unlawful pos-
and arthritis, placed him at an increased risk of se- session of a firearm. Defendant also argued
vere illness. The court found that defendant’s se- that when police seized certain items, specifi-
vere obesity did constitute an extraordinary and cally two gold rings and a black cell phone,
compelling reason justifying release. However, the they exceeded the scope of the warrant. The
court noted that did not make defendant entitled warrant was limited only to firearms-related
to release and proceeded to evaluate the statutory evidence. The court found that the two rings
factors to determine whether a sentence reduction were seized lawfully because they were taken
was appropriate. The court noted that defendant’s from defendant’s person during a search in-
crimes are serious. However, it also stated that de- cident to arrest when the police executed the
fendant has been a motivated inmate, has mentored warrant. However, the court granted defen-
other inmates, and has maintained positive rela- dant’s motion as to the cell phone. It found
tionships with his family. He has expressed remorse that the government did not prove that the
and accepted full responsibility for his actions. The phone had any connection to the crime, nor
government agreed that releasing defendant after did the government timely apply for a warrant
23 years of incarceration did not present a risk to to search the contents of the phone.
public safety and defendant had a detailed release
plan. Therefore, the court granted defendant’s mo-
tion to reduce his sentence to credit for time served. DISCOVERY

CRIMINAL LAW • EVIDENCE Court Precluded Admission of Secret
Audio Recording After Plaintiffs’ Counsel
Court Granted Defendant’s Motion Failed to Provide It During Discovery
to Suppress in Part, Finding Seizure
Of Cell Phone Exceeded Scope of the CASE: Black v. New England Computer Serv. Inc.
Search Warrant COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 3:18-cv-02101
CASE: United States v. Walters COURT OPINION BY: Meyer
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut DATE: March 04, 2021 • PAGES: 8
DOC. NO.: 3:20-cr-89
COURT OPINION BY: Meyer Plaintiffs were three women that were employed
DATE: March 09, 2021 • PAGES: 8 by defendant. Defendant’s president, Chris
Anatra, summoned one of the plaintiffs to dis-
cuss her employment status with the company.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune