165 Conn. App. 703 - State v. Castillo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]n terms of whether a reasonable person would feel that his freedom of movement was restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest and, therefore, that he was 'in custody,' the circumstances surrounding * the defendant's interview in the present case appear no more coercive or intimidating an atmosphere than was present in other cases in which our Supreme Court determined that a suspect questioned in a residence prior to an arrest was not 'in custody' and, thus, not entitled to Miranda [warnings]. See, e.g., State v. Kirby , 280 Conn. 361 , 369-70, 392-94, 396, 908 A.2d 506 (2006) (defendant [was] not 'in custody' for Miranda purposes although five police officers arrived at his home at 4:30 a.m. to question him about kidnapping and assault because defendant invited officers into home, defendant knew why police were there, encounter lasted less than fifteen minutes, officers' guns stayed holstered, and defendant [was] not handcuffed until after he admitted to kidnapping); State v. Johnson , 241 Conn. 702 , 714-21, 699 A.2d 57 (1997) (defendant [was] not 'in custody' although confronted by two detectives and uniformed police officer in driveway of father's house prior to consenting to be questioned in kitchen).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Castillo

2. “'an encounter with police is generally less likely to be custodial when it occurs in a suspect's home.' " Id., at 717 , 140 A.3d 301 , quoting State v. Mangual , supra, 311 Conn. at 206 , 85 A.3d 627 . The facts of the present case, however, are distinguishable from those presented in Mangual , in which we concluded that the defendant was in custody when police interrogated her in her home while executing a search warrant. See State v. Mangual , supra, at 212, 85 A.3d 627 . The Appellate Court explained that, in Mangual , "the totality of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the warrant by the police had transformed the defendant's home into the type of police dominated atmosphere that necessitated that the police advise the defendant of her Miranda rights prior to questioning her.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Castillo

3. “Fador returned to the defendant's home on April 13, 2012, at approximately 5 p.m. Monegro, Monegro's boyfriend, two younger children, and the defendant were home at that time. Fador was accompanied by another detective, Keith Dablaine, and Officer Angel Rios. Fador had brought Rios along because Rios was fluent in Spanish, and, at their initial meeting on April 10, 2012, the defendant had told Fador that Monegro did not speak English. 3 Fador and Dablaine carried sidearms and wore plain clothes with badges around their necks. Rios was dressed in a police uniform and also wore a sidearm.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Castillo