State v. Cofield

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Cofield

576 A.2d 542, 215 Conn. 813, 1990 Conn. LEXIS 236

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJune 7, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 576 A.2d 542 (State v. Cofield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Cofield, 576 A.2d 542, 215 Conn. 813, 1990 Conn. LEXIS 236 (Colo. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

The state of Connecticut’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 22 Conn. App. 10, is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court correctly find a fourth amendment seizure in the absence of the intentional acquisition of physical control over the defendant by the police?

“2. Alternatively, where a police officer was walking parallel to and had reached the exterior rear of the car in which the defendant was seated, with a drawn gun that was held at his side but not pointed, did the Appellate Court properly hold that from the perspective of a reasonable person the display of the weapon converted this approach into a detention?

“3. Assuming, arguendo, that the defendant was seized, should the Appellate Court have reversed the trial court’s finding that the seizure was justified by reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity when it failed to defer to the trial court’s factual determinations? ’ ’

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

The state of Connecticut’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 22 Conn. App. 10, is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court correctly find a fourth amendment seizure in the absence of the intentional acquisition of physical control over the defendant by the police?

“2. Alternatively, where a police officer was walking parallel to and had reached the exterior rear of the car in which the defendant was seated, with a drawn gun that was held at his side but not pointed, did the Appellate Court properly hold that from the perspective of a reasonable person the display of the weapon converted this approach into a detention?

“3. Assuming, arguendo, that the defendant was seized, should the Appellate Court have reversed the trial court’s finding that the seizure was justified by reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity when it failed to defer to the trial court’s factual determinations? ’ ’

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 A.2d 542, 215 Conn. 813, 1990 Conn. LEXIS 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cofield-conn-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack