State v. Romero
Citations
- 199 Conn. App. 39
Syllabus
The defendant, who had been on probation in connection with a prior conviction, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation and sentencing him to thirty months of incarcera- tion. Following a stop of a van in which the defendant was a passenger and a subsequent search of his hotel room, the defendant was arrested and charged with possession of narcotics with intent to sell and posses- sion of drug paraphernalia. At his probation revocation proceeding, certain evidence was admitted that had been obtained from the stop and the search of his hotel room. After the close of evidence, the trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress, declining to recognize an exception to the general inapplicability of the exclusionary rule to probation revocation proceedings, and ruled that the search of the defen- dant's hotel room was lawful. On appeal, the defendant claimed that under the circumstances of the case, the trial court improperly declined to apply the exclusionary rule pursuant to article first, § 7, of the Connect- icut constitution. Held that the defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court improperly declined to apply the exclusionary rule, as the warrantless search at issue did not violate the Connecticut consti- tution; a standard condition of the defendant's probation provided that he submit to a search of his person, possessions, vehicle or residence when a probation officer has a reasonable suspicion that he was violating conditions of his probation, which diminished his reasonable expecta- tion of privacy and furthered the state's dual interests in facilitating the defendant's rehabilitation and protecting society from any future criminal violations by him, and there was no requirement in the defen- dant's probation search condition that a warrant be procured before a search was conducted, and the probation officer and investigator in this case possessed sufficient reasonable suspicion to suspect tha
Judges: Alvord; Keller; Elgo
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- United States v. KnightsSupreme Court· 2001-12-10· cited 1,478×
- Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. ScottSupreme Court· 1998-06-25· cited 588×
- State v. GeislerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-06-18· cited 496×
- State v. DukesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-09-06· cited 152×
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-04-19· cited 128×
- Payne v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-05-24· cited 103×
- Plyler v. EvattSupreme Court· 1988-10-11· cited 75×
- United States v. David Mark ArmstrongFourth Circuit· 1999-07-15· cited 74×
- State v. BrocuglioSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-07-22· cited 43×
- United States v. Kerry Stephen Hebert, OpinionNinth Circuit· 2000-02-03· cited 19×
- State v. JacobsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-05-24· cited 18×
- United States v. HightowerSecond Circuit· 2020-02-06· cited 15×
- State v. FosterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-10-30· cited 10×
- State v. MooreConnecticut Appellate Court· 2009-02-10· cited 6×
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.