reasoning that judicially created constitutional tort was appropriate where “the legislature has neither prohibited the creation of a constitutional tort action to remedy an unlawful search and seizure, nor has it crafted a meaningful alternative remedy for the constitutional violation.”
How later courts described this case
- reasoning that judicially created constitutional tort was appropriate where “the legislature has neither prohibited the creation of a constitutional tort action to remedy an unlawful search and seizure, nor has it crafted a meaningful alternative remedy for the constitutional violation.”
- concluding that search-and-seizure and arrest provisions of Connecticut Constitution afford private cause of action for money damages
- recognizing a private cause of action under the Connecticut Constitution and stating that “the great majority of state courts that have considered the question have recognized their authority to do so under their state constitutions”
- holding a private cause of action existed for the state’s violation of the constitution’s search-and-seizure provision
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Martin v. Brady, 261 Conn. 372 (2002)
Although the defendants’ brief addressed the certified question, at oral argument before this court the defendants conceded that, in the plaintiffs complaint, properly construed, he sued them in their individual, rather than their official, capacities, and that, therefore, Binette v. Sabo, supra, 23, was inapplicable.
Distinguished by Martin v. Brady, 64 Conn. App. 433 (2001)
The defendants argue, and we agree, that Binette is distinguishable from the present case doctrinally.
The opinion
MCDONALD, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with Chief Justice Callahan’s concurring and dissenting opinion.
The majority opinion’s chilling effect on law enforcement officers is unreasonable, dangerous, and obstructs the government’s constitutional responsibility to “insure domestic Tranquility” and provide for the public safety. U.S. Const., preamble; see United States v. Kelner, 534 F.2d 1020, 1026 (2d Cir. 1976). Police officers are often called upon, alone and in danger, to make split second decisions to conduct searches to protect the public’s safety or their own. They may rely upon United States Supreme Court decisions and yet be forced to pay damages for intricate state constitutional violations. Police officers should not face the choice between being carried by six pall bearers or having a like number of jurors take away their home.