Case Name: STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ERIC MAIA
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1997-11-11
Citations: 243 Conn. 242
Docket Number: AC 15623
Parties: STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ERIC MAIA
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 243
Pages: 242–247

Head Matter:
STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ERIC MAIA
(AC 15623)
Callahan, C. J., and Borden, Berdon, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and McDonald, Js.
Officially released November 11, 1997
Louis S. Avitabile, special public defender, for the petitioner (defendant).
Mitchell S. Brody, assistant state’s attorney, for the respondent (state).

Opinion:
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
We agree with the petitioner that the Appellate Court erroneously concluded that this court, in State v. Altrui, 188 Conn. 161, 448 A.2d 837 (1982), rejected a claim that, under the state constitution, a criminal defendant has "automatic standing" to challenge the legality of a police search. In Altrui, we considered the defendant's claim of automatic standing in the context of afederal constitutional challenge to the search. Whether the state constitution embraces the principle of automatic standing remains an open question. See State v. Hill, 237 Conn. 81, 97 n.23, 675 A.2d 866 (1996) ("we have never had occasion to consider whether our state constitution embraces the doctrine of automatic standing"). Because the issue is an important one; see id., 97-98 n.23 ("we agree that the question of whether our [state] constitution embodies the doctrine of automatic standing is a significant one"); we ordinarily would have granted certification on the question of whether a defendant had automatic standing under the state constitution to contest an allegedly illegal search. In this case, however, it is clear that the defendant, Eric Maia, was not a tenant of the searched premises and had no reason to be there other than to use it as a sanctuary from the police. In such circumstances, it is apparent that the defendant would not be entitled to suppression of the seized narcotics even if we were to conclude that the state constitution does, in fact, embody the doctrine of automatic standing.
The defendant's petition for certification is denied.