State v. Cline

677 A.2d 20, 41 Conn. App. 694, 1996 Conn. App. LEXIS 298
Connecticut Appellate Court·Decided June 18, 1996·No. 14453·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a conditional plea of nolo contendere1 and a subsequent finding of guilty, [695] of 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.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Cline, 677 A.2d 20, 41 Conn. App. 694, 1996 Conn. App. LEXIS 298 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

677 A.2d 20 (State v. Cline) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Kalman
868 A.2d 766 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2005)