State v. Vallas

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Vallas

554 A.2d 744, 210 Conn. 803, 1989 Conn. LEXIS 40

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided January 12, 1989·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 16 Conn. App. 245, is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court err in affirming the defendant’s conviction and holding that the wiretap panel’s [804]*804failure to make a written determination of probable cause, pursuant to General Statutes §§ 54-41d (7) and 51-41e, that a special need existed to intercept wire communications over a public telephone was not reversible error?”

William G. Dow III, in support of the petition. Harry Weller, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided January 12, 1989

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

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 16 Conn. App. 245, is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court err in affirming the defendant’s conviction and holding that the wiretap panel’s [804]*804failure to make a written determination of probable cause, pursuant to General Statutes §§ 54-41d (7) and 51-41e, that a special need existed to intercept wire communications over a public telephone was not reversible error?”

William G. Dow III, in support of the petition. Harry Weller, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided January 12, 1989

State v. Vallas, 554 A.2d 744, 210 Conn. 803, 1989 Conn. LEXIS 40 (Colo. 1989).

Pincite

554 A.2d 744 (State v. Vallas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related