State v. Kono, 324 Conn. 80, 122-24 (2016)

In his concurring opinion, Justice Zarella contends that we should have decided this case under the federal constitution rather than under the state constitution. In support of this contention, he states that, as a general matter, “the proper mode of analysis [in a case involving claims under both the federal and state constitutions] should be to address the federal claim first, turning to the state constitutional claim only after determining that the federal constitution does not provide a basis for relief or if the applicable federal rule is truly unsettled.” *123 Because Justice Zarella concludes that the defendant in the present case prevails under settled fourth amendment principles, he asserts that we have no cause to consider the defendant's state constitutional claim. We agree with Justice Zarella that we turn first to the state constitutional claim when the issue is unsettled under the federal constitution or, if it is settled under the federal constitution, when the defendant is not entitled to relief thereunder. Cf. State v. Santiago, 318 Conn. 1, 13 n.11, 122 A.3d 1 (2015). Ordinarily, if the issue has been definitively resolved under the federal constitution, and settled law clearly supports the view advanced by the defendant, there is little reason to undertake the kind of searching and painstaking analysis that invariably will be necessary to resolve a state constitutional issue of first impression raised on appeal.²² On the other hand, if the federal constitution does not clearly and definitively resolve the issue in the defendant's favor, we turn first to the state constitution to ascertain whether its provisions entitle the defendant to relief.²³ After all, as the ultimate arbiter of the state constitution, this court's interpretation of that constitution is final and conclusive, whereas we “can give only an informed guess of the meaning of the [f]ederal [c]onstitution.”²⁴ **28 D. *124 Braithwaite, “An Analysis of the ‘Divergence Factors’: A Misguided Approach to Search and Seizure Jurisprudence Under the New Jersey Constitution,” 33 Rutgers L.J. 1, 35 (2001–2002); see also, e.g., State v. Joyce, supra, 229 Conn. at 15–16 n.6, 639 A.2d 1007 (when issue is not settled under federal constitution, we turn to state constitution rather than speculating as to how issue would be resolved under provisions of federal constitution).²⁵