¶1concurring. I concur in the result because I agree that the police had a reasonable and *385articulable suspicion to conduct the canine sniff of the car and because the defendant, Justiniano Torres, does not claim that a higher standard must be met under the state or federal constitution. Accordingly, I leave to another day the issues of whether a sniff by a trained police dog is a “search” in the constitutional sense, and, if so, whether a canine sniff search of a car requires probable cause.
230 Conn. 372
State v. Torres
Decided July 26, 1994
Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1994-07-26
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“To determine whether the police had a reasonable and articulable suspicion . . . we look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the police action.”
quoted by 2 later decisions, including Laplace v. Demarco, No. Cv 01-0095009 S (Oct. 16, 2002), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 6337 - Gregory v. City of Bridgeport, No. Cv97 34 14 25 S (May 5, 1999)
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1994-07-26
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Bauer v. Waste Management of Connecticut, Inc. (1995), State v. Gant (1994)
107 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →