# Opposition Brief — Connecticut v. Donahue > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386018_0862%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2000 - **Citation:** 531 U.S. 924 ## Text Supreme Court, U.S. FILED . ~A AARA binky Bae ee oF a ~~ No. 99-1988 \ ‘ ths er CY ERK In The Supreme Court Of The United States + STATE OF CONNECTICUT, Petitioner V. JEFFREY L. DONAHUE, Respondent + ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT ¢ RESPONDENT?’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION + KEVIN C. CONNORS* TREIBER, GUARNACCIA & CONNORS 25 Church Street Post Office Box 44 Willimantic, CT 06226 Tel.: (860) 423-6308 Fax: (860) 423-6344 *Counsel of Record Se oe eee QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether the court below properly concluded that the police officer did not have a reasonable suspicion to stop and detain the Respondent in the absence of circumstances (apart from his mere presence in an area believed by the police to have experienced a recent increase in the level of reported criminal activity) tending to indicate that the Respondent was engaged, or was about to be engaged, in criminal activity. TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW...... ... .... "TABLE OF QOITEINT S occ ccs vss sca: ses suk dae aetiec enone TABLE OF AUTHIORITIES ...- ics: <> The Respondent appealed to the Appellate Court from the judgment of conviction rendered upon his conditional plea of nolo contendere. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. State v, Donahue, 53 Conn.App. 497, 729 A.2d 255 (1999). In its opinion, the Appellate Court concluded that the facts of the case supported the trial court’s determination that a reasonable and articulable suspicion existed to justify the stop of the Respondent’s vehicle; therefore, the trial court properly denied the Respondent’s motion to suppress. Thereafter, the Respondent petitioned for certification to appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court. That court granted the petition for certification to appeal, limited to the issue of whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the police had reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify stopping the Respondent’s vehicle. State v, Donahue, 249 Conn. 931, 733 A.2d 850 (1999). 6 The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court. State v, Donahue, 251 Conn. 636, 742 A.2d 775 (1999), resaaing dened (March 8, 2000). In a 4-3 e Aaie decision, the court held that, under the applicable provisions of the Connecticut Constitution and precedents of that court construing those provisions, the officer had no reasonable and articulable suspicion that the Respondent had committed or was about to commit a crime. With only one dissent, the court also rejected, again on state constitutional grounds, the Petitioner’s alternative ground for affirmance of the Appellate Court decision, namely that the Respondent had not been seized at all. In its opinion, the state supreme court specifically noted that it was deciding the case on state constitutional grounds and declined to address the Respondent’s additional claims that his rights under the United States Constitution were violated. State v. Donahue, 251 Conn. at 644 n.10. In dicta, the majonty observed that in its view the detention of the Respondent was in violation of the standard set forth in Terry v, Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20-22, 88 S.Ct., 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). In its note, the majority distinguished the federal precedents relied upon by the dissent from the case at hand in light of the additional facts present in those precedents which supported a finding of reasonable suspicion, facts which were absent in the case under review. State vy. Donahue, 251 Conn. at 644 n.10. 8 REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT A. Absence of a Federal Question Jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1257 is predicated on the presence of a substantial federal question in the case. In the present case, the federal question was presented to the Connecticut Supreme Court to the extent that a Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claim was made in the Respondent’s original motion to suppress. However, the court below specifically, and in clear and express terms, declined to address this claim grounded in the federal constitution. The court’s holding was grounded upon its interpretation of the provisions of Article First, Section 7 of the Connecticut Constitution. State v. Donahue, 251 Conn. at 648. As noted supra, the court below explicitly eschewed reliance upon the federal constitution in its holding but merely, in dicta, noted its disagreement with the applicability of the federal precedents relied upoh by the dissent on the dispositive issue in the case. In addition, there was an adequate and independent state ground for the decision of the court below. As discussed in the majority opinion, Connecticut has developed a substantial body of law on the issue of investigative detention, a body of state law which it relied upon in reaching its decision. This is not a case where the interpretation of the state constitutional provision at issue is governed by federal precedents, nor is the state constitutional ground interwoven with federal law. The clear language of the majority opinion leaves no doubt that the decision was compelled by an analysis of state constitutional jurisprudence; the opinion contains a plain statement to this effect. Jbid.. For this reason, Petitioner’s reliance on Michigan v. Long, 463 USS. 1032, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) is unavailing. 10 B. Absence of a Compelling Reason to Grant Certiorari Rule 10 of the Supreme Court states that certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The petitioner here has provided no such reason, and has in fact rested its claim on a basis which this Court, in Rule 10 itself, indicates will rarely warrant a grant of certiorari: the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law. The Respondent disagrees with the Petitioner and contends that the Connecticut Supreme Court properly applied the principle that an investigative detention is warranted only when reasonable suspicion exists. However, there is no question that the Connecticut court properly stated the principle to be applied; the parties only diverge when the application of that principle is examined in the context of the facts of this case. In the absence of a compelling reason to grant the petition, it ought to be denied. 11 CONCLUSION In the absence of a substantial federal question and in the absence of a compelling reason, the petition for wnit of certiorari filed on behalf of the State of Connecticut ought to be denied. Respectfully submitted, Kevin C. Connors * Treiber, Guarnaccia & Connors 25 Church Street Post Office Box 44 Willimantic, CT 06226 Tel: (860) 423-6308 Fax: (860) 423-6344 * Counsel of Record --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386018_0862%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.