Summary
The Supreme Court of Connecticut dismissed the defendant's appeal as improvidently granted. The appeal concerned whether police had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop the defendant's automobile and whether the trial court properly denied his motion to suppress evidence seized from the vehicle.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court of Connecticut should decide the certified question of whether police had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop the defendant's automobile.
- Whether the appeal should be dismissed because certification had been improvidently granted.
Holdings
- The appeal was dismissed because certification had been improvidently granted.
Key quotations
“After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.” (299 Conn. 238; 9 A.3d 707)
“The appeal is dismissed.” (299 Conn. 238; 9 A.3d 707)
Factual background
Police subjected an automobile driven by Jarrell Richards to an investigatory stop. The circumstances relied upon to justify the stop included the time and location, the vehicle's occupancy and out-of-state license plates, and a brief conversation between the occupants and a passing pedestrian that the pedestrian reported to police. Evidence was seized from the automobile, and Richards was convicted of possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle after entering a conditional nolo contendere plea.
Procedural history
Richards was convicted of possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle following a conditional nolo contendere plea. The trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence from the automobile. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the investigatory stop was supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion. The Supreme Court granted certification but dismissed the appeal because certification had been improvidently granted.