CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, deceased/not found, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #63

[waldojabba]

Here's the judges decision on excluding her phone. He mentions that the state did get a warrant for her records on May 27

https://jud.ct.gov/superiorcourt/MODDocs/2023/51/02ba5e22-15cf-43d1-abdd-4a42cbcc2e6b_2023-51_0.pdf

So I am finding this confusing - ianal
As per the judges decision posted by @Gardenista
- May 27th 2019 there was a warrant to search the defendants phone records
- However.. there was no warrant for search and seizure of the defendants cell phone as of May 31 2019
The state argued exigent circumstances ( which lets you bypass the warrant) when they took the phone but the judge sided with the defense and ruled to suppress 12/23 - the warrantless seizure of the defendants cell phone.

So what info does this motion actually suppress ? You had a warrant for the cell phone records - what else do you get from the phone that the carrier cannot share with you. Motion information from the Health App?
Or does the suppression of the seizure the cell phone mean the state cannot use anything gained from her cell phone?

Also per the articel posted by @BUF above :
While the above motion by the D was pending, the Western District Major Crime Squad filed on Oct 2 2023 a new search warrant for any and all info starting on March 20 1019 regarding the Defendants cell phone records.
Per Schoenhorn ( eyeroll ) :
“The use of these AT&T records by the state at trial at the eleventh hour is the fruit of the unlawful prior seizure obtained as a result of the defective 2019 warrant,” Schoenhorn wrote. “Through information and belief, said records (would] no longer be available through AT&T had they not been retained pursuant to the prior unlawful seizure.”
Schoenhorn also wrote that the second application “falsely represented” to the judge that it had not been presented in any other court or to any other judge in the past “when they knew full well that they were in possession of these records when it was obtained in May 2019 under the prior defective search warrant.”

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/michelle-troconis-jennifer-dulos-cellphone-records-18662588.php

If a new search warrant was filed, I guess the old search warrant was deemed inadmissable - but then can you
refile essentially for the same thing?

It should be clear tomorrow morning when the judge rules and parses it all out for us.

There must be some important info in those records IMO

All IMO

 

[Aquarian]

So I am finding this confusing - ianal
As per the judges decision posted by @Gardenista
- May 27th 2019 there was a warrant to search the defendants phone records
- However.. there was no warrant for search and seizure of the defendants cell phone as of May 31 2019
The state argued exigent circumstances ( which lets you bypass the warrant) when they took the phone but the judge sided with the defense and ruled to suppress 12/23 - the warrantless seizure of the defendants cell phone.

So what info does this motion actually suppress ? You had a warrant for the cell phone records - what else do you get from the phone that the carrier cannot share with you. Motion information from the Health App?
Or does the suppression of the seizure the cell phone mean the state cannot use anything gained from her cell phone?

Also per the articel posted by @BUF above :
While the above motion by the D was pending, the Western District Major Crime Squad filed on Oct 2 2023 a new search warrant for any and all info starting on March 20 1019 regarding the Defendants cell phone records.
Per Schoenhorn ( eyeroll ) :
“The use of these AT&T records by the state at trial at the eleventh hour is the fruit of the unlawful prior seizure obtained as a result of the defective 2019 warrant,” Schoenhorn wrote. “Through information and belief, said records (would] no longer be available through AT&T had they not been retained pursuant to the prior unlawful seizure.”
Schoenhorn also wrote that the second application “falsely represented” to the judge that it had not been presented in any other court or to any other judge in the past “when they knew full well that they were in possession of these records when it was obtained in May 2019 under the prior defective search warrant.”

If a new search warrant was filed, I guess the old search warrant was deemed inadmissable - but then can you
refile essentially for the same thing?

It should be clear tomorrow morning when the judge rules and parses it all out for us.

There must be some important info in those records IMO

All IMO

I agree, I was equally confused. Take Kohberger for example. They tracked his passes at the house before they knew he was a suspect and didn’t get his phone till he was in PA. ( from my recollection of course lol). So, I wondered is this a CT issue or did they in their arguments (D), quote National cases to make their point?

 

[citygirl]

If the state agrees and shows mt leaning out of truck to try and hide fd while he dumped the plates in the sewer, wouldn't that show conspiracy?

I think they've already shown that to the jury.
MOO.

 

[Gardenista]

So I am finding this confusing - ianal
As per the judges decision posted by @Gardenista
- May 27th 2019 there was a warrant to search the defendants phone records
- However.. there was no warrant for search and seizure of the defendants cell phone as of May 31 2019
The state argued exigent circumstances ( which lets you bypass the warrant) when they took the phone but the judge sided with the defense and ruled to suppress 12/23 - the warrantless seizure of the defendants cell phone.

So what info does this motion actually suppress ? You had a warrant for the cell phone records - what else do you get from the phone that the carrier cannot share with you. Motion information from the Health App?
Or does the suppression of the seizure the cell phone mean the state cannot use anything gained from her cell phone?

Also per the articel posted by @BUF above :
While the above motion by the D was pending, the Western District Major Crime Squad filed on Oct 2 2023 a new search warrant for any and all info starting on March 20 1019 regarding the Defendants cell phone records.
Per Schoenhorn ( eyeroll ) :
“The use of these AT&T records by the state at trial at the eleventh hour is the fruit of the unlawful prior seizure obtained as a result of the defective 2019 warrant,” Schoenhorn wrote. “Through information and belief, said records (would] no longer be available through AT&T had they not been retained pursuant to the prior unlawful seizure.”
Schoenhorn also wrote that the second application “falsely represented” to the judge that it had not been presented in any other court or to any other judge in the past “when they knew full well that they were in possession of these records when it was obtained in May 2019 under the prior defective search warrant.”

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/michelle-troconis-jennifer-dulos-cellphone-records-18662588.php

If a new search warrant was filed, I guess the old search warrant was deemed inadmissable - but then can you
refile essentially for the same thing?

It should be clear tomorrow morning when the judge rules and parses it all out for us.

There must be some important info in those records IMO

All IMO

I know that location data on a phone is much more precise than the tower data that you get when you request records. Also, photos and videos would not be on carrier records. There's probably more that I'm not thinking of.

It is weird that the State filed for a new warrant - maybe that was for the physical phone and not the records? I hate that we don't get to actually see most of the documents.

 

[citygirl]

So I am finding this confusing - ianal
As per the judges decision posted by @Gardenista
- May 27th 2019 there was a warrant to search the defendants phone records
- However.. there was no warrant for search and seizure of the defendants cell phone as of May 31 2019
The state argued exigent circumstances ( which lets you bypass the warrant) when they took the phone but the judge sided with the defense and ruled to suppress 12/23 - the warrantless seizure of the defendants cell phone.

So what info does this motion actually suppress ? You had a warrant for the cell phone records - what else do you get from the phone that the carrier cannot share with you. Motion information from the Health App?
Or does the suppression of the seizure the cell phone mean the state cannot use anything gained from her cell phone?

Also per the articel posted by @BUF above :
While the above motion by the D was pending, the Western District Major Crime Squad filed on Oct 2 2023 a new search warrant for any and all info starting on March 20 1019 regarding the Defendants cell phone records.
Per Schoenhorn ( eyeroll ) :
“The use of these AT&T records by the state at trial at the eleventh hour is the fruit of the unlawful prior seizure obtained as a result of the defective 2019 warrant,” Schoenhorn wrote. “Through information and belief, said records (would] no longer be available through AT&T had they not been retained pursuant to the prior unlawful seizure.”
Schoenhorn also wrote that the second application “falsely represented” to the judge that it had not been presented in any other court or to any other judge in the past “when they knew full well that they were in possession of these records when it was obtained in May 2019 under the prior defective search warrant.”

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/michelle-troconis-jennifer-dulos-cellphone-records-18662588.php

If a new search warrant was filed, I guess the old search warrant was deemed inadmissable - but then can you
refile essentially for the same thing?

It should be clear tomorrow morning when the judge rules and parses it all out for us.

There must be some important info in those records IMO

All IMO

Indeed. And, IMO, this is big. The State needs to win this to pull it all together

I know that location data on a phone is much more precise than the tower data that you get when you request records. Also, photos and videos would not be on carrier records. There's probably more that I'm not thinking of.

It is weird that the State filed for a new warrant - maybe that was for the physical phone and not the records? I hate that we don't get to actually see most of the documents.

Now I'm really confused.
Not unusual. MOO.

 

[afitzy]

So I am finding this confusing - ianal
As per the judges decision posted by @Gardenista
- May 27th 2019 there was a warrant to search the defendants phone records
- However.. there was no warrant for search and seizure of the defendants cell phone as of May 31 2019
The state argued exigent circumstances ( which lets you bypass the warrant) when they took the phone but the judge sided with the defense and ruled to suppress 12/23 - the warrantless seizure of the defendants cell phone.

So what info does this motion actually suppress ? You had a warrant for the cell phone records - what else do you get from the phone that the carrier cannot share with you. Motion information from the Health App?
Or does the suppression of the seizure the cell phone mean the state cannot use anything gained from her cell phone?

Also per the articel posted by @BUF above :
While the above motion by the D was pending, the Western District Major Crime Squad filed on Oct 2 2023 a new search warrant for any and all info starting on March 20 1019 regarding the Defendants cell phone records.
Per Schoenhorn ( eyeroll ) :
“The use of these AT&T records by the state at trial at the eleventh hour is the fruit of the unlawful prior seizure obtained as a result of the defective 2019 warrant,” Schoenhorn wrote. “Through information and belief, said records (would] no longer be available through AT&T had they not been retained pursuant to the prior unlawful seizure.”
Schoenhorn also wrote that the second application “falsely represented” to the judge that it had not been presented in any other court or to any other judge in the past “when they knew full well that they were in possession of these records when it was obtained in May 2019 under the prior defective search warrant.”

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/michelle-troconis-jennifer-dulos-cellphone-records-18662588.php

If a new search warrant was filed, I guess the old search warrant was deemed inadmissable - but then can you
refile essentially for the same thing?

It should be clear tomorrow morning when the judge rules and parses it all out for us.

There must be some important info in those records IMO

All IMO

I’m a bit fuzzy on this situation but it seems like prior warrant existed for records but not for physical cell phone. There also were cell tower dump records that appear tied to the physical phone and so this data (location, time etc.) was removed as well because in the opinion of the Judge R this more precise data represents greater individual privacy risk and was kicked by Judge R along with the physical cell phone as he didn’t believe exigent circumstances existed to take the cell phone without a specific warrant.

I think the issue is that the physical phone and the associated cell tower data provides all the personal information in terms of location that in the Judges mind at least represents a greater privacy issue vs records alone. Judge also didn’t see exigent circumstances to justify taking the MT cell phone.

What I don’t understand is why the MT cell phone wasnt just taken and bagged or placed in airplane mode until warrant was obtained? Seems like there was a snafu with overlapping officers and the original officer didn’t read the SW to see what was included or not. Judge R didn’t cut LE any slack on the issue of permitting seizure at all. Wonder if Judge R isn’t a supporter of LE or was he afraid of appeal risk?

What I also don’t get is why Judge didn’t see the issue that if phone were not removed from MT she could have and most likely did erase her phone and delete her iCloud account? Why didn’t Judge realise time was of the essence? LE knew quite a bit by the time they raided 4Jx so I see it as a huge risk to allow MT to hold onto her phone.

Remember MT and the hero IT consultant who helped her copy her phone and delete things? I wonder if perhaps having him as a witness could help State prove their case on the issue of deception and manipulation!

Baffling and I truly wonder if Judge understood what all was going on at the time and how MT could have wiped the phone and deleted her iCloud etc. Very disappointed in this ruling as I wonder if Judge R spoke to I believe Judge White to perhaps better understand what all was going on at that time and how time really was of the essence to take the phone away from MT.

I think I will start on the hard seltzer with OJ for breakfast as I am sure we will be treated to a full bore whine fest….brush up on your constitutional law folks as I’m sure he will throw it all at the Court tomorrow and spaghetti and bucatini and angel hair will simply coat the place….

Also fwiw I’m not sure esteemed defence counsel is correct that the MT cell phone data used by the State wouldn’t have existed at the time of the correct warrant was obtained most recently. Think we need to “watch our wallets” on these issues and frankly I’d prefer to hear from AT &T tech rep rather than defence counsel! “Esteemed Defence Counsel” also seems to be blaming state perhaps for using original records and justifying them with the more recent warrant.

Oh my….lots and lots of pasta will be flying tomorrow…buckle up.

MOO

 

[afitzy]

I know that location data on a phone is much more precise than the tower data that you get when you request records. Also, photos and videos would not be on carrier records. There's probably more that I'm not thinking of.

It is weird that the State filed for a new warrant - maybe that was for the physical phone and not the records? I hate that we don't get to actually see most of the documents.

I think Judge R kicked the cell tower search results and the physical phone. These two would provide pinpoint locations for MT along with texts and photos and apps etc. that records alone I don’t think would provide.

Will wait to be schooled on this tomorrow as I still don’t see argument for no exigent circumstances as everything about the 4Jx situation imo was exigent! MT and her phone could have fled and/or been deleted or damaged.

Baffling.
MOO

 

[afitzy]

I know that location data on a phone is much more precise than the tower data that you get when you request records. Also, photos and videos would not be on carrier records. There's probably more that I'm not thinking of.

It is weird that the State filed for a new warrant - maybe that was for the physical phone and not the records? I hate that we don't get to actually see most of the documents.

I believe the apps and photos might be on the phone….texts are on the phone…. But we will have to wait to see all this clarified in Court.

Idk if the iCloud account can be taken separately from the physical phone or if they are tied together?

Photos and I think some backup info can be on iCloud or perhaps she backed up to laptop of other cloud service or external hard drive.

I hope we get to see Atty Manning at her “panther best” tomorrow as this will be a battle imo.

MOO

 

[citygirl]

I’m a bit fuzzy on this situation but it seems like prior warrant existed for records but not for physical cell phone. There also were cell tower dump records that appear tied to the physical phone and so this data (location, time etc.) was removed as well because in the opinion of the Judge R this more precise data represents greater individual privacy risk and was kicked by Judge R along with the physical cell phone as he didn’t believe exigent circumstances existed to take the cell phone without a specific warrant.

I think the issue is that the physical phone and the associated cell tower data provides all the personal information in terms of location that in the Judges mind at least represents a greater privacy issue vs records alone. Judge also didn’t see exigent circumstances to justify taking the MT cell phone.

What I don’t understand is why the MT cell phone wasnt just taken and bagged or placed in airplane mode until warrant was obtained? Seems like there was a snafu with overlapping officers and the original officer didn’t read the SW to see what was included or not. Judge R didn’t cut LE any slack on the issue of permitting seizure at all. Wonder if Judge R isn’t a supporter of LE or was he afraid of appeal risk?

What I also don’t get is why Judge didn’t see the issue that if phone were not removed from MT she could have and most likely did erase her phone and delete her iCloud account? Why didn’t Judge realise time was of the essence? LE knew quite a bit by the time they raided 4Jx so I see it as a huge risk to allow MT to hold onto her phone.

Remember MT and the hero IT consultant who helped her copy her phone and delete things? I wonder if perhaps having him as a witness could help State prove their case on the issue of deception and manipulation!

Baffling and I truly wonder if Judge understood what all was going on at the time and how MT could have wiped the phone and deleted her iCloud etc. Very disappointed in this ruling as I wonder if Judge R spoke to I believe Judge White to perhaps better understand what all was going on at that time and how time really was of the essence to take the phone away from MT.

I think I will start on the hard seltzer with OJ for breakfast as I am sure we will be treated to a full bore whine fest….brush up on your constitutional law folks as I’m sure he will throw it all at the Court tomorrow and spaghetti and bucatini and angel hair will simply coat the place….

Also fwiw I’m not sure esteemed defence counsel is correct that the MT cell phone data used by the State wouldn’t have existed at the time of the correct warrant was obtained most recently. Think we need to “watch our wallets” on these issues and frankly I’d prefer to hear from AT &T tech rep rather than defence counsel! “Esteemed Defence Counsel” also seems to be blaming state perhaps for using original records and justifying them with the more recent warrant.

Oh my….lots and lots of pasta will be flying tomorrow…buckle up.

MOO

Do you think the Judge may have regrets about this, though he appeared to follow the rule of law? When revisited tomorrow will he reconsider his opinion?

 

[afitzy]

Just parking a reminder to see if State ever confirms the issue of MT daughter not being finished at school on murder date until I think 9pm. This whole story never made sense and being away at school for 12 hrs on a day when most schools had early dismissal never made sense to me. This seems like a long day day for a 10/11 yo. IdK.

Did anyone ever see confirmation of play performance or rehearsal at Ethel Walker?

MOO

 

[afitzy]

Do you think the Judge may have regrets about this, though he appeared to follow the rule of law? When revisited tomorrow will he reconsider his opinion?

Honestly I don’t understand why the ruling just wasn’t appealed? Was it timing issue as Judge perhaps refused to postpone trial start? Now trial has another mess on its hands.

This is me guessing but I don’t know if Judges can overrule themselves either but perhaps they could if additional information was presented after the ruling? Everything about that time was exigent and idk why Judge R didn’t recognize it? I truly don’t know as this is above my pay grade on Court rules. Sorry. Will just have to wait and be schooled tomorrow.
MOO

 

[Aquarian]

The apps are on the phone….texts are on the phone….

Idk if the iCloud account can be taken separately from the physical phone or if they are tied together?

Photos and I think some backup info can be on iCloud or perhaps she backed up to laptop of other cloud service or external hard drive.

I hope we get to see Atty Manning at her “panther best” tomorrow as this will be a battle imo.

MOO

Husband senior IT phone guy, all that stuff is in the cloud. Think of when you get a new phone and transfer your music, pics etc. So, if they get the AT&T records they should have what they need.

 

[DeDee]

If they were leaving them for KM, it would be interesting to compare the time of this stop with the time FD called KM during their Albany excursion, for example, if they were calling him at that time to let him know the location. But, if the police needed a sewer truck to extract them, it might not have been possible to retrieve them.

Someone could volunteer to watch the cctv trash bag dumps again to see what the timestamp reads to determine when the tags went down the drainage and when they were at Starbucks, their last stop, in order to compare it to cell phone records for a match. We need a 7:47pm range:

"Police said Dulos’ phone records show him calling Mawhinney on May 24 at 7:47 p.m.–in the time period in which Dulos was allegedly discarding evidence in the case in Hartford."

Who is Kent Mawhinney? | Law & Crime

 

[afitzy]

Here is link for Tuesday delays and closures. Looks like mostly upstate closures and delays so far and not Fairfield County.

NBC Connecticut

Connecticut News, Local News, Weather, Traffic, Entertainment, Breaking News

www.nbcconnecticut.com

 

[afitzy]

So you see cloud info tied to records and not to physical phone? If so, good for State and no bueno for MT. MOO

 

[afitzy]

Someone could volunteer to watch the cctv trash bag dumps again to see what the timestamp reads to determine when the tags went down the drainage and when they were at Starbucks, their last stop, in order to compare it to cell phone records for a match. We need a 7:47pm range:

"Police said Dulos’ phone records show him calling Mawhinney on May 24 at 7:47 p.m.–in the time period in which Dulos was allegedly discarding evidence in the case in Hartford."

Who is Kent Mawhinney? | Law & Crime

This is interesting as I don’t recall FD on phone when he was dumping plates but I do remember him looking at his phone a lot in Starbucks. Will go back and double check my recollection on Starbucks.

 

[citygirl]

The apps are on the phone….texts are on the phone….

Idk if the iCloud account can be taken separately from the physical phone or if they are tied together?

Photos and I think some backup info can be on iCloud or perhaps she backed up to laptop of other cloud service or external hard drive.

I hope we get to see Atty Manning at her “panther best” tomorrow as this will be a battle imo.

MOO

GRRRRRRRRR

 

[Megnut]

Of what value to FD to get his license plates back? Truly I don't know why he didn't destroy them and dump them in a different bin but I just don't see any reason to want someone (like KM) to dig them out of the sewer. I wonder if there were other sewer stops.

 

[afitzy]

Atty Lee is looking at the MT interviews and she has adjusted the audio and done subtitles for highlights to make it easier to hear.

 

[Aquarian]

So you see cloud info tied to records and not to physical phone? If so, good for State and no bueno for MT. MOO

Yes definitely.