textual analysis in Connecticut

2024Thus, whether butterfly knives are dangerous and unusual is a contention as to which Hawaii bears the burden of proof in the second prong of the Bruen analysis.’’ (Citation omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)), vacated and reh’g en banc granted, 93 F.4th 1150 (9th Cir. 2024). 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 43 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 45 State v. Giannone Although not all of those courts decided which party bears the burden of proof on the common use issue,33 a majority of courts that have considered common use at the first step have placed the burden of proof on that issu

2021I find similarly instructive the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s well reasoned decision in Estate of Cavanaugh v. Andrade, 202 Wis. 2d 290 , 298 n.3, 315, 550 N.W.2d 103 (1996), which considered the intersection of Wis- consin’s emergency vehicle statute and a governmental immunity statute that, like § 52-557n (a) (2) (B), afforded immunity to police officers for liability during the performance of discretionary acts.

2021I find similarly instructive the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s well reasoned decision in Estate of Cavanaugh v. Andrade, 202 Wis. 2d 290 , 298 n.3, 315, 550 N.W.2d 103 (1996), which considered the intersection of Wis- consin’s emergency vehicle statute and a governmental immunity statute that, like § 52-557n (a) (2) (B), afforded immunity to police officers for liability during the performance of discretionary acts.

2011While the majority does not dispute the correctness of Kluttz as it pertains to § 14-222a, they have not provided a textual basis for distinguishing §§ 14-222a and 14-227a in connection with the motor vehicle exception to the definition of offense under the Penal Code. [21] In addition to the decisions discussed in this opinion, the majority points to this court's decision in State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98 , 547 A.2d 10 (1988), as support for its construction.

2011While the majority does not dispute the correctness of Kluttz as it pertains to § 14-222a, they have not provided a textual basis for distinguishing §§ 14-222a and 14-227a in connection with the motor vehicle exception to the definition of offense under the Penal Code. [21] In addition to the decisions discussed in this opinion, the majority points to this court's decision in State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98 , 547 A.2d 10 (1988), as support for its construction.

2007The decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Salvucci, supra, 448 U.S. 83 , in which that court overruled the automatic standing doctrine, did not turn on whether the defendant owned the seized items or merely possessed them.

2005Rather, it enumerated (persons, houses, papers, and effects) the objects of privacy protection to which the Constitution would extend . . . .” (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 97 , 119 S. Ct. 469 , 142 L.

2005Rather, it enumerated (persons, houses, papers, and effects) the objects of privacy protection to which the Constitution would extend . . . .” (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 97 , 119 S. Ct. 469 , 142 L.

2001The history of the exclusionary rule in Connecticut also does not support the defendant’s claim, for “[u]ntil the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S. Ct. 1684 , 6 L.

2001The history of the exclusionary rule in Connecticut also does not support the defendant’s claim, for “[u]ntil the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S. Ct. 1684 , 6 L.