State v. Cline
This text of 677 A.2d 20 (State v. Cline) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a conditional plea of nolo contendere1 and a subsequent finding of guilty, [695]*695of possession of narcotics in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279.* 2 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The defendant asserts that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress certain narcotics, United States currency, and a telephone paging device seized from him incident to his arrest. The defendant argues that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him and, therefore, that the items he sought to suppress were not seized pursuant to a lawful arrest.
We conclude that this case is controlled by the decision of our Supreme Court in State v. Velez, 215 Conn. 667, 577 A.2d 1043 (1990).
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
677 A.2d 20, 41 Conn. App. 694, 1996 Conn. App. LEXIS 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cline-connappct-1996.