Legal Opinion

State v. Maia

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided November 11, 1997No. AC 15623PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

2Per curiam

We agree with the petitioner that the Appellate Court erroneously concluded that this court, in State v. Altrui, 188 Conn. 161, 448 A.2d 837 (1982), rejected a claim that, under the state constitution, a criminal defendant has “automatic standing” to challenge the legality of a police search. In Altrui, we considered the defendant’s claim of automatic standing in the context of afederal constitutional challenge to the search. Whether the state constitution embraces the principle of automatic standing remains an open question. See State v. Hill, 237 Conn. 81, 97 n.23, 675 A.2d 866…

3Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. HillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
  2. State v. AltruiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982

4Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. DavisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
  2. State v. CooperConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
  3. State v. SalvatoreConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
  4. State v. MaiaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
  5. State v. Russo, No. Cr97-5154140 (Aug. 15, 2000)Connecticut Superior Court · 2000

1 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