We have in the past made pleas for lawyers to focus on the Connecticut Constitution. Let us here point out a reason for our plea that we have not given in the past: the Connecticut Constitution has a historical breadth unique among the constitutions of all 50 states, yet too many constitutional claims are being pursued solely under the U.S. Constitution even if there is a coordinate provision of the Connecticut Constitution that surely provides additional chances of success.

Two recent cases come to mind: State v. Patrick M., 344 Conn. 565, involving Miranda rights, and State v. Smith, 344 Conn. 229, involving a search warrant. Patrick M. happened to succeed and Smith happened to partially succeed under federal constitutional law. But that is not the point. The point is that neither defendant appears to have raised any issue under the Connecticut Constitution, even as a backup.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]