State v. Vincent

623 A.2d 1026, 225 Conn. 917, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 127
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided March 25, 1993·No. SC 14736·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 249 (AC 10688), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the search war[918] rant application stated probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed?
Decided March 25, 1993 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14736. Michael K. Courtney, assistant public defender, in support of the petition. Leah Hawley, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
“2. Was the Appellate Court correct in not deciding (1) whether the seizure of the revolver, the subject of the prosecution, was ‘inadvertent’ under the ‘plain view’ exception to the warrant requirement, and (2) whether the Connecticut constitution requires ‘inadvertence’ under the ‘plain view’ exception even if the United States constitution does not?”

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

State v. Vincent, 623 A.2d 1026, 225 Conn. 917, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 127 (Colo. 1993).

623 A.2d 1026 (State v. Vincent) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Vincent
640 A.2d 94 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1994)