Dina S. Fisher, assigned counsel, in support of the petition.
Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state's attorney, in opposition.
The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 202 Conn. App. 736, 246 A.3d 1010, is granted, limited to the following issues:
"1. Did the Appellate Court properly uphold the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress the contents of his iPhone in reliance on United States v. Patane,
542 U.S. 630,
124 S. Ct. 2620,
159 L. Ed. 2d 667 (2004), and State v. Mangual,
311 Conn. 182,
85 A.3d 627 (2014), when the seizure of those contents was the result of questioning after he had invoked his Miranda rights, on the basis that a cell phone and its stored data constitute ‘physical’ (i.e., nontestimonial) evidence that need not be suppressed if seized as the result of a Miranda violation?
"2. Did the Appellate Court properly reject the defendant's claim that the holding in Patane does not comport with the broader protections against compelled self-incrimination afforded under article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution?"
KAHN, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.