Hartford — A lawyer for Jean Jacques, who was sentenced two years ago to 60 years in prison for murdering Casey Chadwick in 2015, wants a new trial and argued Wednesday before the state Supreme Court that a warrantless search of Jacques' apartment had violated his constitutional rights.

But the senior assistant state's attorney argued that, at the time of the police search, Jacques was not living there and had no expectation of privacy for the apartment.

The arguments were made before the Supreme Court justices and a roomful of students at Trinity College, part of the court's program to teach students about the appellate process.

The search of Jacques' apartment at the center of the Supreme Court case occurred in July 2015, a month after Chadwick was stabbed to death and found in a closet in her Norwich apartment. The search came after a jailhouse informant incarcerated with Jacques said Jacques had hidden drugs and Chadwick's cellphone in a cubby in his apartment, according to court documents.

According to the documents, police first searched Jacques' apartment with permission from the landlord. Police then secured a warrant and took the drugs and phone from the apartment.

Prior to his murder trial, Jacques had filed a motion to suppress evidence from the search, and the court in 2016 ruled against granting the motion, the documents say. In 2016, a New London Superior Court jury found Jacques guilty of murdering 25-year-old Chadwick.

During Wednesday's arguments, lawyers from each side made their case about whether or not the apartment was Jacques' home at the time of the search and whether or not he had an expectation of privacy. The justices asked questions and pressed the lawyers on points throughout the arguments.

S. Max Simmons, the assigned counsel for Jacques, argued that the state had the burden to prove that Jacques "abandoned" his privacy interest in the apartment and claimed the state did not provide evidence to support that. He said the warrantless search violated Jacques' Fourth Amendment rights.

He said it takes more than an absence or a failure to pay rent for Jacques to have relinquished his apartment as a home. He said there was never an indication that Jacques asked his friends to retrieve his possessions so he could vacate the apartment.

"The court seemed to treat the situation as if he forfeited his right to privacy due to not paying the rent for July," Simmons said.

The state argued in a court brief that the trial court used the right standards and analysis and that Jacques had "abandoned his privacy interest" in the apartment.

David J. Smith, senior assistant state's attorney, said Wednesday that at the time of the search Jacques had no expectation of privacy. He said that the issue of privacy had to be considered on the basis of: “What did the defendant do or specifically choose not to do when he was incarcerated?”

The state argued that Smith said Jacques' month-to-month apartment lease — which began on June 10, 2015 — had lapsed at the time of the search. Smith said Jacques knew he would be incarcerated for a long time, his possessions had been bagged up, and he neither paid rent, due July 10, nor contacted his family or anyone to pay it.

k.drelich@theday.com