State v. Brown, 202 A.3d 1003 (Conn. 2019). · cites it 2ד" Other statutes to which the state refers that expressly provide for suppression as a remedy include General Statutes §§ 54-41 l , 54-1c, 46b-137 (a) and 14-227a (b).”
State v. Tomasko, 681 A.2d 922 (Conn. 1996). · cites it 2ד11 The defendant argues that: (1) both recordings were improperly admitted because they were the product *267 of custodial interrogation and, consequently, Miranda warnings had been required; and (2) the recorded telephone conversation was improperly admitted because it…”
State v. Chiarizio, 514 A.2d 370 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 2דThe first purpose is fulfilled by the signed statement of the panel that it “has unanimously determined on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant in [Drescher’s affidavit] that there is probable cause to believe that” the nine requirements of General Statutes § 54-41…”
State v. Grant, 404 A.2d 873 (Conn. 1978). “iscovered more than fifteen days preceding the date of the application, while § 2518 imposes no such restriction; section 54-41b limits the use of electronic surveillance to three types of offenses, while § 2516 is far less restrictive; section 54-41d allows for a *26 maximum…”
State v. Anonymous, 30 Conn. Supp. 302 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1973). · cites it 3דV Even if the defendant were correct in contending that there was a failure to comply with the provisions of General Statutes § 54-41?, it would not follow necessarily that this action should be dismissed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.