Still Missing CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 ARRESTS #57

doodles1211 · May 26, 2019

New Canaan Police are looking for a missing woman Saturday, May 25.

Jennifer Dulos, 50, was reported missing around 7:30 p.m. Friday, May 24. A sliver alert has been issued.

New Canaan Police with the assistance of the Connecticut State Police initiated a search and an investigation both of which are ongoing as of 8:45 am. Saturday..

Anyone with information related to Dulos’s whereabouts should contact Sgt. Joseph Farenga at 203-505-1332.

Knitty · Dec 12, 2023

Please continue the discussion here.

Seattle1 · Dec 12, 2023

Jmoose said:
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?

No, I disagree, and given the facts, the two phone seizures are not comparable.

Jennifer vanished on Friday, 5/24, and by the Saturday investigators had probable cause to believe that a homicidal event likely happened inside her garage. On Saturday, 5/25, fD appeared at the police station with a civil attorney and when it became obvious that he had no desire to assist police with Jennifer's case, an investigator asked to see fD's phone as he was walking out the door, fD voluntarily handed it to him and also gave him his passcode, and the investigator immediately put fD's phone on airplane mode (i.e., prevent destruction of potential evidence).

Up to this point and under the circumstances, there was no warrant required. However, to actually search a phone, this does require a warrant, and within hours on the same day, investigators had a signed warrant to search fD's phone.

Reportedly, six days after police legally seized and searched fD's phone, they collected MT's phone on 5/31. Seriously, think of how far the investigation had already progressed by then including the surveillance videos of the couple making dump stops and search of the residence, so to not have obtained a warrant for MT's phone was a simply a bad call. Especially since they had a signed arrest warrant for MT the next day on 6/1/2019! No excuse here.

See MT Arrest Warrant dated Jan 4, 2020 linked upthread.

Seattle1 · Dec 12, 2023

Michelle Troconis' mom describes police search of Farmington home days after Jennifer Dulos vanished

Michelle Troconis' mother testified Thursday about the Connecticut State Police search...

www.stamfordadvocate.com

9/7/23

Marisela Arreaza testified that she flew from Miami, Fla., on May 30, 2019, to visit Troconis at her shared home with Fotis Dulos at 4 Jefferson Crossing in Farmington. It was only her second time visiting the home, she said.

Around 5:30 a.m. the next morning, Arreaza said she and her 12-year-old granddaughter awoke to police officers at the front door of the home. She claimed she didn’t know Fotis Dulos and her daughter were under investigation at the time, but she figured the law enforcement presence had something to do with the disappearance of Jennifer Dulos.
Later that day, Arreaza said police came back to the home. This time, she said, police didn't allow anyone in or out of the home without a police escort.

[..]

Arreaza also said that during this search, a state trooper seized Troconis’ cellphone, taking it right out of her hands without presenting a warrant.

Troconis’ attorney, Jon Schoenhorn, likened the execution of the search warrant to the “Wild West,” calling its breadth and scope “unreasonable.” State police said they executed a search warrant on the Farmington home on June 3, 2019. However, Schoenhorn contends they were inside the home as early as May 31 and stretched the search out for four days.

ETA: MT's arrest warrant is silent on the search and seizure of MT's phone. Therefore, can't confirm the date authorities obtained a warrant to search and seize MT's phone but I'm presuming it was June 3, 2019.

To be clear, even if officers did not seize MT's phone until the moment she was arrested on Saturday, June 1, they would have a valid seizure but would still need a warrant to search the phone. That's the law!

Jmoose · Dec 12, 2023

Seattle1 said:
No, I disagree, and given the facts, the two phone seizures are not comparable.

Jennifer vanished on Friday, 5/24, and by the Saturday investigators had probable cause to believe that a homicidal event likely happened inside her garage. On Saturday, 5/25, fD appeared at the police station with a civil attorney and when it became obvious that he had no desire to assist police with Jennifer's case, an investigator asked to see fD's phone as he was walking out the door, fD voluntarily handed it to him and also gave him his passcode, and the investigator immediately put fD's phone on airplane mode (i.e., prevent destruction of potential evidence).

Up to this point and under the circumstances, there was no warrant required. However, to actually search a phone, this does require a warrant, and within hours on the same day, investigators had a signed warrant to search fD's phone.

View attachment 467606

Reportedly, six days after police legally seized and searched fD's phone, they collected MT's phone on 5/31. Seriously, think of how far the investigation had already progressed by then including the surveillance videos of the couple making dump stops and search of the residence, so to not have obtained a warrant for MT's phone was a simply a bad call. Especially since they had a signed arrest warrant for MT the next day on 6/1/2019! No excuse here.

View attachment 467607

See MT Arrest Warrant dated Jan 4, 2020 linked upthread.

This sloppiness makes me very unhappy-and worried that she will slink away with what she’s done. Talk me off the ledge

LosAngeles · Dec 12, 2023

12/12/2023

This notification is brought to you by the Connecticut Statewide Automated Victim Information and Notification (SAVIN) Program.

This email is to inform you that MICHELLE TROCONIS, with docket number FST CR200241178T, has an upcoming court event.

A/An Hearing has been scheduled for 12/13/2023. This will take place in Stamford-Norwalk JD Courthouse located at the following address: 123 Hoyt Street, Stamford, CT.

Seattle1 · Dec 12, 2023

Meanwhile, defense attorney Jon Schoenhorn argued it was unlawful for police to seize that phone without a warrant because there was no probable cause, and that as a result, the contents of the device should not be used as evidence. He added that police had time to get a search warrant for the phone, but didn’t get one.

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

Marissa Alter @MarissaAlter The sergeant testified that after seeing the video from Albany Ave in Hartford of Fotis Dulos making multiple stops to dump items, and a woman he inferred was Michelle Troconis in the car with him, the sergeant said there were exigent circumstances to seize her...

www.websleuths.com

Ok, so JLS gets 2 of 70+ Motions filed: Removal of MT's ankle monitor after 4 years, and evidence from MT's cell phone not admissible at trial.

Diddian · Dec 12, 2023

Seattle1 said:
Meanwhile, defense attorney Jon Schoenhorn argued it was unlawful for police to seize that phone without a warrant because there was no probable cause, and that as a result, the contents of the device should not be used as evidence. He added that police had time to get a search warrant for the phone, but didn’t get one.

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

Marissa Alter @MarissaAlter The sergeant testified that after seeing the video from Albany Ave in Hartford of Fotis Dulos making multiple stops to dump items, and a woman he inferred was Michelle Troconis in the car with him, the sergeant said there were exigent circumstances to seize her...

www.websleuths.com

Ok, so JLS gets 2 of 70+ Motions filed: Removal of MT's ankle monitor after 4 years, and evidence from MT's cell phone not admissible at trial.

LE got a warrant for the cellphone records for MT's phone on 5/27 (8:10 am). So, I assume LE can still use any evidence obtained directly from those records independent of her actual physical device. They just cannot use evidence that would have been on the phone itself, but not independently in the cellphone records, right?

So, thinking about what evidence would now be excluded:

the time her phone's wake-up alarm went off on day of JFD's abduction/murder is out.
the content of any text that had not been cleared out of her phone prior to a logical extraction from the device would be out, but not the fact that a text or call was made and to whom and at what time and at what location (as those would appear independently in cellphone records).
location data that could be gleaned from cellphone records (such as specific cellphone tower locations for calls made or received) would be allowed as that information is in cellphone records, but GPS data from the phone itself would not be allowed.
ETA: "contact" information from the phone (names associated with particular numbers, email addresses) would be disallowed (except where it could be independently determined from the cellphone records and outside sources alone.
ETA: any pattern information determined from analysis of call history would still be allowed as that information would come from cellphone records.

Are these correct assumptions? Anything else?

Evidence of any differences between information MT put in her "phone log" or "activity log" that disagreed with information gleaned from the cellphone records would be allowed, but if the only source was the logical extraction from the device, it would not.

Seattle1 · Dec 12, 2023

From previous thread -- bringing forward Marissa's 12/11/23 Tweets form the suppression hearing on Monday.

Marissa Alter
@MarissaAlter

HAPPENING NOW: As I’d heard, the day begins with taking up up emails from two jurors who now say it would be “inconvenient or beyond inconvenient” to serve on the jury for Michelle Troconis’ trial, which is expected to last two months.
@News12CT
7:31 AM · Dec 11, 2023

@MarissaAlter

All we’ve learned is the first juror has had a change of residency since being picked. Five minute recess to get the email he sent in.
@News12CT
7:35 AM · Dec 11, 2023

@MarissaAlter

We’re back. Juror who was chosen says he actually lives in New York and has lived there since Nov. 2022 but never changed his license to NY and the jury notice came to his parents’ house, where he used to live, in CT.
@News12CT
7:45 AM · Dec 11, 2023

Juror is excused. He was selected as a regular juror. So now one of the six alternates will be drawn to replace him.
@News12CT
7:46 AM · Dec 11, 2023

Next person who says he can’t serve on the jury is an alternate. He says he can’t serve on a jury that length because his mother-in-law needs heart surgery and he and his wife need to help take care of her. Judge excuses him from serving.
@News12CT
7:50 AM · Dec 11, 2023

We are now down to four alternates left, along with the six-person jury, when the trial begins in four weeks.
@News12CT
7:55 AM · Dec 11, 2023

ETA: add tweets

@MarissaAlter

TROCONIS HEARING: We start today’s hearing finishing testimony on the defense’s motion to suppress the seizure of Michelle Troconis’ cell phone. The argument is police did not have probable cause to seize it on 5/31/2019.
@News12CT
8:28 AM · Dec 11, 2023

Police did not have a warrant for the phone when they seized it.
@News12CT
8:29 AM · Dec 11, 2023
Reporter's response to inquiry if no warrant was fact or allegation by JLS:
https://twitter.com/MarissaAlter
Marissa Alter
@MarissaAlter

The sergeant on the stand said they did not get a warrant before, but it was an emergency situation.
8:38 AM · Dec 11, 2023

Marissa Alter
@MarissaAlter

The sergeant testified that after seeing the video from Albany Ave in Hartford of Fotis Dulos making multiple stops to dump items, and a woman he inferred was Michelle Troconis in the car with him, the sergeant said there were exigent circumstances to seize her phone.
@News12CT
9:34 AM · Dec 11, 2023

Marissa Alter
@MarissaAlter
The sergeant testified that there was an immediate need to seize the phone so potential evidence couldn’t be destroyed. He said he immediately put it in airplane mode so that couldn’t happen. A search warrant to do a forensic exam of the phone was applied for & granted on 6/6.
9:50 AM · Dec 11, 2023

Marissa Alter
@MarissaAlter

UPDATE: We are finally going to begin the hearing on the defense’s motion to suppress Michelle Troconis’ statements to police. They’ve now added Friday to the testimony schedule with the video interrogation motion starting so late today.
@News12CT
11:49 AM · Dec 11, 2023

Several hours worth of interviews with Troconis will be entered into evidence in the hearing. There will also be testimony so it’s going to take a while to get through it.
@News12CT
11:51 AM · Dec 11, 2023

Of note—Judge Randolph said he will issue a ruling on the motion to suppress Troconis’ cell phone by Thursday.
@News12CT
11:52 AM · Dec 11, 2023

Seattle1 · Dec 12, 2023

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 · Dec 12, 2023

Seattle1 said:
ETA: MT's arrest warrant is silent on the search and seizure of MT's phone. Therefore, can't confirm the date authorities obtained a warrant to search and seize MT's phone but I'm presuming it was June 3, 2019.

To be clear, even if officers did not seize MT's phone until the moment she was arrested on Saturday, June 1, they would have a valid seizure but would still need a warrant to search the phone. That's the law!

^^rsbm

UPDATE: OK, from testimony on Monday, just found confirmation of the search warrant date for MT's phone which was June 6, 2019, and not June 3, as I speculated per the quoted MSM above. (June 3 was the warrant date to search FD & MT residence).

In this case, it looks worse than before: seized MT's phone on 5/31, MT arrested 6/1, but no warrant to search her phone until 6/6 -- yikes! Nope... I can't disagree with the Court granting the defense Motion.

Seattle1 said:
Marissa Alter
@MarissaAlter
The sergeant testified that there was an immediate need to seize the phone so potential evidence couldn’t be destroyed. He said he immediately put it in airplane mode so that couldn’t happen. A search warrant to do a forensic exam of the phone was applied for & granted on 6/6.
9:50 AM · Dec 11, 2023

Seattle1 · Dec 12, 2023

Diddian said:
LE got a warrant for the cellphone records for MT's phone on 5/27 (8:10 am). So, I assume LE can still use any evidence obtained directly from those records independent of her actual physical device. They just cannot use evidence that would have been on the phone itself, but not independently in the cellphone records, right?

^^rsbm

Thanks for your reply @Diddian but I'm not understanding the warrant info cited in your post. Can you please provide link for the cell phone warrant on 5/27. Does this refer to records from MT's provider AT&T?

In my reading of MT's arrest PCA, I found SSW data for FT's phone (see post #3) but the the PCA silent on MT's cell phone SSW. However, from Monday's suppressing hearing, we have confirmation MT's phone was seized on 5/31/19 and the SSW obtained on 6/6/19. Thank you.

BUF · Dec 12, 2023

JS and his theatrics…what will the trial be like?

Motion to suppress Michelle Troconis' cell phone in trial is granted

“Like a trophy for a rare tiger hunt, they brought her for no reason to New Canaan to parade her through the police department to say, 'aha, look what we got,'” Schoenhorn said.

Megnut · Dec 12, 2023

BUF said:
JS and his theatrics…what will the trial be like?

Motion to suppress Michelle Troconis' cell phone in trial is granted

“Like a trophy for a rare tiger hunt, they brought her for no reason to New Canaan to parade her through the police department to say, 'aha, look what we got,'” Schoenhorn said.

Trophy.

Puhlease.

Seattle1 · Dec 12, 2023

Seattle1 said:
~~suppressing~~ suppression of evidence hearing

EBM ^^auto spellcheck hits again...

Seattle1 · Dec 12, 2023

BUF said:
JS and his theatrics…what will the trial be like?

Motion to suppress Michelle Troconis' cell phone in trial is granted

“Like a trophy for a rare tiger hunt, they brought her for no reason to New Canaan to parade her through the police department to say, 'aha, look what we got,'” Schoenhorn said.

Oh, I know -- saw some of his earlier soundbites this morning when he was newly hired and I won't subject anybody else to watch them again!

From OP's quoted MSM link:

On Tuesday [12/12], her attorney also worked to have statements made during Troconis’ transport suppressed as well.

In court, the day was spent interrogating interrogators. Troconis’ lawyer arguing statements made during her transport should be tossed out, because troopers attempted to coerce Troconis to waive her right to an attorney.

[..]

In an audio file heard in court from the transport of Troconis to the New Canaan Police Department following her arrest, you can hear a trooper say, “There is no trouble, it’s not, it’s not trouble, if you, you wish to let the, consult with your attorney and not talk to the police, that’s completely fine, you’re well within your right to do that.”

[..]

Assistant State's Attorney Sean McGuinness asks him, “When the defendant indicated she wanted her attorney to do the talking for her, did you at that point cease asking questions about the case?” to which the trooper answers, “yes.”

The trooper also claims Troconis was transported to New Canaan because those were the orders the team was given, but could not recall a reason behind the directive.

There are still 8 hours of interrogation footage the court will continue to work through this week, with the full trial expected to begin Jan. 8.

Seattle1 · Dec 12, 2023

Seattle1 said:
UPDATE: We are finally going to begin the hearing on the defense’s motion to suppress Michelle Troconis’ statements to police. They’ve now added Friday to the testimony schedule with the video interrogation motion starting so late today.
@News12CT
11:49 AM · Dec 11, 2023

Several hours worth of interviews with Troconis will be entered into evidence in the hearing. There will also be testimony so it’s going to take a while to get through it.
@News12CT
11:51 AM · Dec 11, 2023

In the previous thread, I believe I misspoke when commenting on the tweets above from Monday's Motions hearing to suppressing evidence, and want to apologize.

When I read the quoted Reporter's tweet,

"...several hours worth of interviews with Troconis will be entered into evidence...,"

I incorrectly interpreted this to mean that hours of MT's interviews (i.e., in-custody police interviews #1, 2, and 3, conducted in the presence of MT's attorney) had been ruled by the Court as admitted into evidence for the trial, and therefor the defense Motion to suppress, denied.

Seeing the quoted MSM below that there are still 8 hours of footage in review, it's now clear to me that Reporter was referring to the the hours of interviews that were now part of the Motions hearing record, and not that there's been a Court ruling admitting the evidence! Again, sorry for any inconvenience.

Seattle1 said:
There are still 8 hours of interrogation footage the court will continue to work through this week, with the full trial expected to begin Jan. 8.

Diddian · Dec 12, 2023

Seattle1 said:
^^rsbm

Thanks for your reply @Diddian but I'm not understanding the warrant info cited in your post. Can you please provide link for the cell phone warrant on 5/27. Does this refer to records from MT's provider AT&T?

In my reading of MT's arrest PCA, I found SSW data for FT's phone (see post #3) but the the PCA silent on MT's cell phone SSW. However, from Monday's suppressing hearing, we have confirmation MT's phone was seized on 5/31/19 and the SSW obtained on 6/6/19. Thank you.

Yes, from MT's provider AT&T. It's from the original batch of search warrants (more than 400 pages) that were unsealed in January 2020. There were 3 approved by Judge Blawie on 5/27/2019 at 8:04, 8:06, and 8:10 pm. In order of time authorized, they were for cellphone records associated with 203-434-3297, 305-331-5232, and 203-918-4877. I mistakenly said MT's was the warrant signed at 8:10 pm but it was the one signed at 8:06 pm (I confused the two in my notes).

That first cellphone number was the number from which FD texted the nanny, LA. The other 203 number was also FD's. The 305 number (Miami area code) was MT's.
I've been attempting to find the news articles that originally linked to the 469 pages of warrants - see posts with links made at that time (Jan 15, 2020) here:

sds71 said:
Search warrants
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...-11ea-8277-7318c2983cb5/5e1f2fcf017da.pdf.pdf

and here:

sds71 said:
Search warrants in Jennifer Dulos murder case unsealed

But all of those links are now dead.

If I can find a current link, I will post it here.

Seattle1 · Dec 12, 2023

Diddian said:
But all of those links are now dead.

If I can find a current link, I will post it here.

Big thanks and please post if you find the archived record specific to the 5/27/19 request to AT&T for MT. (I also searched the MEDIA ONLY thread before requesting a link but found the same -- invalid/dead links).

Given the evidence from MT's SSW dated June 6, 2019 (i.e., the whole enchilada) will not be admissible at trial, I'm especially interested in whether or not the 5/27/19 warrant to AT&T resulted in anything of forensic value.

Generally, requests to the carrier are more often a Subpoena to compel production of "phone records" and/or Court Order for the content of text messages. Under the circumstances, at best, I think the only thing prosecution will have is the ability to confirm whether or not MT was talking on her phone, oblivious to FD, while he was was driving and dropping evidence in dumpsters, as MT alleges.

The birth of smartphones pretty much flipped both authorized and legal evidence collection on it's head, and the higher courts are not done!

Most recently, seems State and Federal Courts are split on whether the Fifth Amendment (self incrimination) prohibits police from compelling individuals to hand over their passcodes to unlock their cell phones so prosecutors can look for incriminating evidence, and when and how the “forgone conclusion exception” applies. One more headed to the Supreme Court for a decision.

Seattle1 · Dec 13, 2023

Judge approves motion to suppress evidence from Michelle Trononis’ cellphone

A multi-day pre-trial hearing for a woman charged in connection to the disappearance and presumed death of a New Canaan mother included a victory Tuesday for the defense.

www.wtnh.com

12/12/23

In a decision, the judge wrote that the contents of her phone “presents the greatest of privacy concerns.”

Schoenhorn is also trying to get her interviews with police thrown out as evidence, stating that she was pushed to answer questions, was fatigued and denied basic rights, including repeatedly asking for her attorney and struggling with a language barrier.

A state prosecutor argued that police had grounds to seize the phone without a warrant and has fought for the interviews to be used as evidence.

“The suggestion to all these questions was, ‘You were badgering her,'” Sean McGuinness, the assistant state’s attorney, said. “That’s not the case. He’s responding to things she said.”

Still Missing CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 *ARRESTS* #57

Well-Known Member

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A piece of peace is peace enough.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics

Still Missing CT - Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 ARRESTS #57