# Binette v. Sabo

> Supreme Court of Connecticut · March 10, 1998 · 244 Conn. 23

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7845400

## Case

- **Full name:** JOSEPH A. BINETTE v. MAHLON C. SABO
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Connecticut
- **Decided:** March 10, 1998
- **Citations:** 244 Conn. 23; 710 A.2d 688; 1998 Conn. LEXIS 57
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by McDonald
- **Judges:** Berdon, Callahan, Katz, McDonald, Palmer
- **Cited by:** 154 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7845400

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 …
- 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
- explaining that decision to recognize causes of action for state constitutional provisions would be made on case-by-case basis after “multifactor analysis”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7845400. Public record. Not legal advice.