State v. Maia
Supreme Court of Connecticut
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
- State v. HillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- State v. AltruiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
4Cited by6 opinions
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- State v. CooperConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- State v. SalvatoreConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
- State v. MaiaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- State v. Russo, No. Cr97-5154140 (Aug. 15, 2000)Connecticut Superior Court · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.