State v. Correa
Citations
- 340 Conn. 619
Syllabus
The defendant was convicted, following a conditional plea of nolo conten- dere, of the crimes of conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to sell, conspiracy to possess narcotics with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent, and conspiracy to operate a drug factory. During surveillance of a motel for illegal activity, a police officer, observing an individual, T, quickly enter and exit the defendant's motel room at around 1 a.m., believed that he had witnessed a drug transaction. After T exited the motel room, he entered a vehicle driven by another individual, which departed from the motel. A short distance from the motel, the police stopped the vehicle. When the police approached the vehicle, they smelled a strong odor of marijuana emanating from inside The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. 620 JANUARY, 2022 340 Conn. 619 State v. Correa the vehicle. After T was removed from the vehicle, he admitted to possessing marijuana. A search of T's person revealed, inter alia, mari- juana and heroin. The police ultimately detained T, who, at that time, denied being in or having any connection with the defendant's motel room. The police then went to the house of T's grandmother, where T was living. After T's grandmother consented to a search of T's bedroom, the officers searched that room and found numerous plastic bags with the corners cut off, as well as other bags containing an off-white powder residue. The officers went back to the motel and spoke with the manager, who advised them that the defendant paid cash to rent a room there for a week and provided them with a copy of the defendant's driver's license. The manager also indicated that a guest registration card for that room included the name of an individual with T's surname, which the police believed was most likely T. The officers then went to knock on the defendant's motel room door. The officers observed a light on, but
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ‘‘[i]ndependent source . . . means that the tainted evidence was obtained, in fact, by a search untainted by illegal police activity’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-08-09· cited 15×
- State v. HaynesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-07-01· cited 10×
- State v. BemberSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-06-25· cited 4×
- State v. BowdenSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-08-09· cited 2×
- State v. James A.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-12-19· cited 1×
Cites
85 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1967-12-18· cited 13,304×
- United States v. PlaceSupreme Court· 1983-06-20· cited 3,374×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- Brigham City v. StuartSupreme Court· 2006-05-22· cited 2,237×
- Illinois v. CaballesSupreme Court· 2005-01-24· cited 2,007×
- Welsh v. WisconsinSupreme Court· 1984-05-15· cited 1,874×
- Kyllo v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2001-06-11· cited 1,834×
- Florida v. JardinesSupreme Court· 2013-03-26· cited 1,615×
- Stoner v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1964-05-18· cited 1,576×
- Segura v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1984-07-05· cited 1,569×
- Kentucky v. KingSupreme Court· 2011-05-16· cited 1,457×
- Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert BernardSupreme Court· 2016-06-23· cited 1,440×
- Murray v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1988-06-27· cited 1,424×
- Florida v. HarrisSupreme Court· 2013-02-19· cited 782×
- United States v. ThomasSecond Circuit· 1985-03-11· cited 299×
- Brown v. North CarolinaSupreme Court· 1986-11-03· cited 227×
- State v. BadgettSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-07-08· cited 184×
- United States v. ChristyTenth Circuit· 2014-01-03· cited 170×
- United States v. Serafin Alfonso, Humberto Rayo, Fabian Mora, Primo Antonio Serrano-TellezNinth Circuit· 1985-05-01· cited 168×
- State v. CobbSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-12-07· cited 167×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.