Still Missing CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #56

[Niner]

So - if I have this correct - suppression hearing will continue on 12/13, 12/14 & 12/15?

TIA!

 

[Cloudydiamond]

https://twitter.com/MarissaAlter
@MarissaAlter

BREAKING: Judge Kevin Randolph has granted the motion from Michelle Troconis’ attorney to suppress the warrantless seizure of her cell phone on 5/31/19. The state argued exigent circumstances allowed for it. Randolph ruled exigent circumstances didn’t apply here.
@News12CT

https://x.com/MarissaAlter/status/1734599593826955709?s=20

 

[Seattle1]

On Monday, Judge said he'd rule on the MT's phone by Thursday so I guess he made his decision early. I think I said this could go either way but now we know. Naturally, JLS said there was nothing incriminating on MT's phone, and other than tracking her location, I don't think the prosecution has lost anything crucial here.


https://twitter.com/MarissaAlter
Marissa Alter
@MarissaAlter

BREAKING: Judge Kevin Randolph has granted the motion from Michelle Troconis’ attorney to suppress the warrantless seizure of her cell phone on 5/31/19. The state argued exigent circumstances allowed for it. Randolph ruled exigent circumstances didn’t apply here.
@News12CT
7:42 AM · Dec 12, 2023

Testimony on that motion was heard primarily on 9/13 with cross of State Police Sgt. Michael Beauton occurring g yesterday.
@News12CT
7:43 AM · Dec 12, 2023

Troconis’ attorney, Jon Schoenhorn, told us yesterday, following his argument, that there was nothing incriminating on the phone, “but in the absence of a warrant, you can’t just grab people’s phones because it might be ‘helpful’ to an investigation.”
@News12CT
7:50 AM · Dec 12, 2023
·

 

[Seattle1]

I think the problem with the state arguing exigent circumstances to seize and search MT's phone is the date they did this or 5/31/19. I think they could have obtained a warrant by this time so the Court made the right call here.

Previously, I assumed they seized MT's phone on the same date they took fD's phone which was on 5/25/19.

MOO

 

[Jmoose]

I think the problem with the state arguing exigent circumstances to seize and search MT's phone is the date they did this or 5/31/19. I think they could have obtained a warrant by this time so the Court made the right call here.

Previously, I assumed they seized MT's phone on the same date they took fD's phone which was on 5/25/19.

MOO

So Pattis likely could have successfully made the same argument with regard to fD’s phone, if he’d gone to trial, since even if it made sense to suspect him, at that point they hadn’t found any evidence that he was involved-they got the evidence after they took his phone, put it into airplane mode, and got the warrant. How did they subsequently get the warrant for MT’s phone?

 

[Jmoose]

What exactly does it mean that the court suppressed the evidence from MT’s phone, because of the lack of warrant? I mean, any information that resides on the phone would be off the table, but what about other evidence that ensued from information gleaned from examining her phone?

 

[Knitty]

Thread is closed. Please continue at Thread #57