Legal Opinion
State v. Hamilton
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided April 24, 1990No. 13696PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtArthur H. Healey, J.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the Appellate Court erred in concluding that the discovery of certain keys used to unlock a van where drugs were stored was not inadvertent and thus did not qualify under the plain view doctrine as an exception to the warrant requirement.1 The *694Appellate Court in State v. Hamilton, 17 Conn. App. 385, 552 A.2d 834 (1989), held that, on the basis of the testimony given during the pretrial hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress the van keys seized by the police in a search of her apartment, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that…
2Cases cited53 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Weeks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Texas v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- DeLaurentis v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- State v. CobbSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- State v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- State v. MacNeilConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
- State v. SailorConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.