 |
4.3-5 Interference with a Search -- § 54-33d
New, April 23, 2010
The defendant is charged [in count __] with interfering with a search. The statute defining this offense imposes punishment on any person who forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates or interferes with any person authorized to serve or execute search warrants or to make searches and seizures while engaged in the performance of (his/her) duties with regard thereto or on account of the performance of such duties.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Element 1 - Interfered with authorized search any police
officer of a regularly organized police department, any state
police officer, an inspector
in the Division of Criminal Justice, a
conservation officer, special conservation officer or patrolman appointed by the
Commissioner of Environmental Protection and acting within (his/her) statutory
duties. You must find that <insert name of officer>
was <identify type of officer>. The defendant must have forcibly assaulted,
forcibly resisted, forcibly opposed, forcibly impeded, forcibly intimidated or
forcibly interfered with <insert name of officer>. There are six verbs describing how this offense
may be committed. You need only find that the defendant's conduct fits the
definition of one of these words, but they are all modified with the word
"forcibly." "Forcibly" means actual physical force or violence or superior
physical strength against another person. "Assault" means to attack another
person, either physically or verbally, causing the other person to fear
immediate harm. "Resist" means to oppose actively, to fight, argue or work
against. "Oppose" means to be against. "Impede" means to prevent action.
"Intimidate" means to make afraid, or to deter with threats or violence.
"Interfere" means to prevent or hinder.
Element 2 -
In the performance of duties
The first element is that the defendant forcibly
assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated or interfered with a person
authorized to serve or execute search warrants or to make searches and
seizures. Certain persons are authorized by statute1
to serve and execute search warrants and to conduct searches and seizures.
Among those authorized are <insert as appropriate:>
The second element is that the conduct of the
defendant occurred while <insert name of officer> was acting in the
performance of (his/her) duties or on account of the performance of those
duties. This means that the conduct of the officer, which the defendant
allegedly interfered with, was within the scope of what (he/she) is employed to
do, and was related to <insert name of officer>'s official duties in
serving and executing the search warrant or conducting the search and seizure.
The question of whether (he/she) was acting in good faith within (his/her)
official duties is a factual question for you to determine based on the evidence
in the case. <Summarize evidence if appropriate.>
It does not matter if the search and seizure itself was not legally authorized, as long as the officer had a good faith belief that he was serving and executing a valid search warrant or conducting an authorized search. A person is not permitted to interfere with the service and execution of a search warrant or a search conducted by an authorized person even if the person sincerely believes that the search and seizure is wrongful.2
It is necessary, however, that the person being searched knows or should know that the other person is an authorized person.3
An authorized person serving and executing a search warrant or conducting a search and seizure is justified in using physical force, but only so much as (he/she) reasonably believes is necessary to serve and execute the warrant or conduct the search. If you find that any force used by the <insert name of officer> was more than <insert name of officer> reasonably believed was necessary, then (his/her) conduct was outside the scope of what (he/she) was authorized to do.
So to find that the officer was acting in or on account of the performance of (his/her) duties, you must find that <insert name of person searched> knew or should have known that <insert name of officer> was authorized to serve and execute the search warrant or to conduct the search, that <insert name of officer> was acting in good faith as an officer serving and executing the warrant or conducting the search, and that (he/she) used no more physical force than was reasonably necessary to carry out (his/her) duties.
Element 3 - Intent to interfereThe third element is that the defendant acted with the specific intent to interfere with the officer in the service and execution of the warrant or the conduct of the search and seizure.3 A person acts "intentionally" with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such result. <See Intent: Specific, Instruction 2.3-1.>
Conclusion
In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant forcibly assaulted, forcibly resisted, forcibly opposed, forcibly impeded, forcibly intimidated or forcibly interfered with <insert name of officer>, 2) while <insert name of officer> was serving and executing a search warrant or conducting a search and seizure within the scope of (his/her) official duties, and 3) the defendant specifically intended to interfere with <insert name of officer>.
If you unanimously find that the state has proved
beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of interfering with
a search, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the other hand, if you
unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not guilty.
_______________________________________________________
1 General Statutes § 54-33a (c) (search warrants); § 51-286 (b) (chief inspectors); § 26-6 (b) (conservation officers, special conservation officers and patrolmen).
2 State v. Browne, 291 Conn. 720, 741 n.16 (2009).
3 State v. Woolcock, 201 Conn. 605, 628-32 (1986); State v. Ramirez, 61 Conn. App. 865, 874 (2001).
Commentary
A person does not have the right to an attorney before the execution of a search warrant. United States v. Bullock, 73 Fed. 3d 171, 173 (5th Cir. 1995).