exclu- sionary rule in Connecticut

2024Held: This court concluded, under the balancing test set forth in United States v. Janis ( 428 U.S. 433 ), that the trial court’s ruling denying C’s motion in limine was legally and logically correct, that court having correctly deter- mined that the exclusionary rule was inapplicable in civil proceedings, as the minimal deterrent effect of employing the rule in the circumstances at issue was substantially outweighed by the societal interest in presenting reliable evidence of animal neglect in actions under § 22-329a to protect the health and safety of animals.

2021In the case of a search conducted pursuant to a search warrant, [t]he two elements that must be satisfied to allow admission [under the indepen- dent source doctrine] are: (1) the warrant must be sup- ported by probable cause derived from sources inde- pendent of the illegal entry; and (2) the decision to seek the warrant may not be prompted by information gleaned from the illegal conduct.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285, 333 , 743 A.2d 1 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841 , 121 S. Ct. 106 , 148 L.

2021In the case of a search conducted pursuant to a search warrant, [t]he two elements that must be satisfied to allow admission [under the indepen- dent source doctrine] are: (1) the warrant must be sup- ported by probable cause derived from sources inde- pendent of the illegal entry; and (2) the decision to seek the warrant may not be prompted by information gleaned from the illegal conduct.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285, 333 , 743 A.2d 1 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841 , 121 S. Ct. 106 , 148 L.

2021In the case of a search conducted pursuant to a search warrant, [t]he two elements that must be satisfied to allow admission [under the indepen- dent source doctrine] are: (1) the warrant must be sup- ported by probable cause derived from sources inde- pendent of the illegal entry; and (2) the decision to seek the warrant may not be prompted by information gleaned from the illegal conduct.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285, 333 , 743 A.2d 1 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841 , 121 S. Ct. 106 , 148 L.

2021In the case of a search conducted pursuant to a search warrant, [t]he two elements that must be satisfied to allow admission [under the indepen- dent source doctrine] are: (1) the warrant must be sup- ported by probable cause derived from sources inde- pendent of the illegal entry; and (2) the decision to seek the warrant may not be prompted by information gleaned from the illegal conduct.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285, 333 , 743 A.2d 1 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841 , 121 S. Ct. 106 , 148 L.

2021In the case of a search conducted pursuant to a search warrant, [t]he two elements that must be satisfied to allow admission [under the indepen- dent source doctrine] are: (1) the warrant must be sup- ported by probable cause derived from sources inde- pendent of the illegal entry; and (2) the decision to seek the warrant may not be prompted by information gleaned from the illegal conduct.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285, 333 , 743 A.2d 1 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841 , 121 S. Ct. 106 , 148 L.

2019We have explained that ‘‘ ‘[a]pplication of the exclu- sionary rule . . . is not automatic.’ ’’ State v. Spencer, 268 Conn. 575, 599 , 848 A.2d 1183 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 957 , 125 S. Ct. 409 , 160 L.

2019We have explained that ‘‘ ‘[a]pplication of the exclu- sionary rule . . . is not automatic.’ ’’ State v. Spencer, 268 Conn. 575, 599 , 848 A.2d 1183 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 957 , 125 S. Ct. 409 , 160 L.

2019We have explained that ‘‘ ‘[a]pplication of the exclu- sionary rule . . . is not automatic.’ ’’ State v. Spencer, 268 Conn. 575, 599 , 848 A.2d 1183 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 957 , 125 S. Ct. 409 , 160 L.

2019Ed. 2d 320 (2004). ‘‘Under the inevitable discovery rule, evidence illegally secured in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights need not be suppressed if the state demonstrates by a prepon- derance of the evidence that the evidence would have been ultimately discovered by lawful means.’’ State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412, 433 , 512 A.2d 160 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 940 , 107 S. Ct. 423 , 93 L.

2019Ed. 2d 320 (2004). ‘‘Under the inevitable discovery rule, evidence illegally secured in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights need not be suppressed if the state demonstrates by a prepon- derance of the evidence that the evidence would have been ultimately discovered by lawful means.’’ State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412, 433 , 512 A.2d 160 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 940 , 107 S. Ct. 423 , 93 L.

2019We have explained that ‘‘ ‘[a]pplication of the exclu- sionary rule . . . is not automatic.’ ’’ State v. Spencer, 268 Conn. 575, 599 , 848 A.2d 1183 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 957 , 125 S. Ct. 409 , 160 L.

2019We have explained that ‘‘ ‘[a]pplication of the exclu- sionary rule . . . is not automatic.’ ’’ State v. Spencer, 268 Conn. 575, 599 , 848 A.2d 1183 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 957 , 125 S. Ct. 409 , 160 L.

2019Ed. 2d 320 (2004). ‘‘Under the inevitable discovery rule, evidence illegally secured in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights need not be suppressed if the state demonstrates by a prepon- derance of the evidence that the evidence would have been ultimately discovered by lawful means.’’ State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412, 433 , 512 A.2d 160 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 940 , 107 S. Ct. 423 , 93 L.

2019Ed. 2d 320 (2004). ‘‘Under the inevitable discovery rule, evidence illegally secured in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights need not be suppressed if the state demonstrates by a prepon- derance of the evidence that the evidence would have been ultimately discovered by lawful means.’’ State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412, 433 , 512 A.2d 160 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 940 , 107 S. Ct. 423 , 93 L.

2016Likewise, we recognize that proba- tioners have ‘‘a diminished expectation of privacy by virtue of [their probationary status] . . . .’’ State v. Smith, 207 Conn. 152, 166 , 540 A.2d 679 (1988).

2016Likewise, we recognize that proba- tioners have ‘‘a diminished expectation of privacy by virtue of [their probationary status] . . . .’’ State v. Smith, 207 Conn. 152, 166 , 540 A.2d 679 (1988).

2016Invoking the exclu- sionary rule would put the police (and society) not in the same position they would have occupied if no violation occurred, but in a worse one.’’ (Emphasis in original.) Id., 541 .