Opinion · Connecticut Appellate Court Opinions
STATE v. MIKE, 256 Conn. 920 (2001)
774 A.2d 140
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Connecticut Appellate Court Opinions
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut
- Date
- 2001-05-30
- Topic
- general
STATE v. MIKE, 256 Conn. 920 (2001) 774 A.2d 140 STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ROGER MIKE[fn*]Supreme Court of Connecticut [fn*] The appeal was dismissed February 26, 2002. The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 62 Conn. App. 907 (AC 20157), is granted, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the trial court's refusal to apply the exclusionary rule at the defendant's violation of probation hearing did not violate article first, 8, of the Connecticut constitution?" VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE v. MIKE, 256 Conn. 920 (2001). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
"Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the trial court's refusal to apply the exclusionary rule at the defendant's violation of probation hearing did not violate articlefirst,8, of the Connecticut constitution?"
VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16532.Michael Moscowitz, special public defender, in support of the petition.Eileen McCarthy Geel, assistant state's attorney, in opposition.
- The appeal was dismissed February 26, 2002. ↩