*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** STATE v. JACQUES—CONCURRENCE KAHN, J., with whom ROBINSON, C. J., joins, concur- ring. I agree with and join the judgment of the well reasoned majority opinion reversing the judgment of conviction of the defendant, Jean Jacques. That is, given the absence in the current record of any evidence or argument regarding the effect of the defendant’s parole status on his expectation of privacy in his apartment, I agree that we are compelled to conclude that the trial court improperly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of his apartment. Moreover, in light of the state’s waiver of the claim that any error by the trial court was harmless, we are also compelled to reverse the judgment of conviction. I write separately to clarify two points: First, in my view, the state’s case, even without the evidence obtained from the July 15, 2015 search of the defendant’s apartment, was a strong one. My review of the record persuades me that the state would have readily been able to demonstrate that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, and more importantly, I write to emphasize that a parolee’s expec- tation of privacy in his or her dwelling does not increase upon being arrested and incarcerated for another offense during the period of parole. I HARMLESS ERROR Before I proceed to the primary point I wish to make in this concurring opinion—that the defendant’s expec- tation of privacy in his apartment did not increase as a result of his incarceration—I observe that, even without the evidence obtained from the July 15, 2015 search that is at issue in this appeal, the state had an over- whelming case against the defendant. The state’s theory of the case was that the defendant went to the victim’s apartment on the night of June 14, 2015, stabbed her to death, and then stole ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals