Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Browne

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided November 6, 2007No. AC 27662Published

1DissentGruendel, J.

The particularity clause of the fourth amendment requires that “no warrants *322shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const., amend. IV. Because the search and seizure warrant in the present case mistakenly referenced the illicit drug cocaine instead of the illicit drug marijuana, the majority, relying on Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 124 S. Ct. 1284, 157 L. Ed. 2d 1068 (2004), concludes that the warrant failed to comply with that constitutional mandate. I…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. United States v. VentrescaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  4. Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  5. Groh v. RamirezSupreme Court of the United States · 2004

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API