State v. Anderson

Summary

The dissent argues that the Connecticut Constitution prohibits a court from using a monetary bond solely to detain a defendant perceived to be dangerous when the defendant is not a flight risk. It reasons that the historical and constitutional purpose of monetary bail is to ensure appearance, while public-safety concerns may be addressed through nonfinancial release conditions and statutory revocation procedures. Because this is a dissent, it does not state the controlling disposition. Justice Palmer, joined by the chief justice and Justice McDonald, would conclude that the defendant was unconstitutionally preventively detained.