Summary
In State v. Radicioni, supra, 33 Conn. App. 903, this court followed the Supreme Court ruling in State v. Diaz, 226 Conn. 514, holding that we use a "substantial basis" review of an issuing judge's determination of probable cause.
Summary of this case from State v. FrazierOpinion
(11776) (11777)
Submitted September 27, 1993
Decision released October 12, 1993
Substitute informations charging the defendant in each case with the crimes of possession of marijuana with intent to sell, cultivation of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New London, where the court, Stanley, J., granted the defendants' motions to suppress certain evidence; thereafter, the court, Purtill, J., rendered judgments dismissing the informations, from which the state, on the granting of permission, filed separate appeals to this court which were consolidated; this court affirmed the judgments, and the state, on the granting of certification, appealed to the Supreme Court, which remanded the case to this court for reconsideration. Reversed; further proceedings.
Michael L. Regan, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was C. Robert Satti, St., state's attorney, for the appellant (state).
Joseph F. Segal, for the appellees (defendants).
This consolidated action is now before us on remand from the Supreme Court. The relevant facts are fully reported in State v. Radicioni, 32 Conn. App. 267, 629 A.2d 432, remanded for reconsideration, 227 Conn. 921, 632 A.2d 698 (1993). We have reconsidered our decision in light of State v. Diaz, 226 Conn. 514, 628 A.2d 567 (1993).