******************************************************

The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the

beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will

be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the

date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative

date for the beginning of all time periods for filing

postopinion motions and petitions for certification is

the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.

In no event will any such motions be accepted before

the ‘‘officially released’’ date.

All opinions are subject to modification and technical

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the

event of discrepancies between the electronic version

of an opinion and the print version appearing in the

Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

latest print version is to be considered authoritative.

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying

the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official

Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service

and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes

of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of

the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal

Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

******************************************************
STATE v. KENDRICK—FIRST DISSENT

PALMER, J., dissenting. I agree with and join Justice

McDonald’s convincing dissent. As both Justice McDonald and the Appellate Court explain; see State v. Kendrick, 132 Conn. App. 473, 484, 31 A.3d 1189 (2011);

the circumstances known to the police when they

entered the room in Blanca Valvo’s third floor apartment at 239 Knickerbocker Avenue in the city of Stamford, where the defendant, Said Kendrick, was located,

were insufficient to support a reasonable concern that

entry into that room was necessary to protect their

safety. In particular, and contrary to the reasoning of

the majority, the information that the landlord of 239

Knickerbocker Avenue provided to the police, namely,

that ‘‘an African-American man matching [Malik] Singer’s general description had been ‘keeping company

with’ the daughter of the tenant in the third floor unit,’’

is not entitled to any weight because, in fact, the only

information that the landlord provided was that the

man in question was an African-American. Indeed,

although the majority relies on the landlord’s ‘‘description’’ of the man that he had seen with Valvo’s daughter

to support its conclusion that the warrantless search at

issue was justified, the majority also appears to concede

that that description was entirely devoid of any other

identifying facts orinformation in noting ‘‘the vagueness

of the landlord’s description, which was merely that a

black male was associated with the third floor unit.’’

Without anything more—and despite the cell phone

‘‘ping,’’ which provided a basis to believe only that

Singer was somewhere in the vicinity of 239 Knickerbocker Avenue—the police had no more reason to think

that Singer was in a room in Valvo’s apartment than

that he was in any other room in that entire apartment

building. I therefore respectfully dissent.