State v. Davis , 186 Conn. App. 385, 393–94, 199 A.3d 1149 (2018), cert. denied, 330 Conn. 965, 199 A.3d 1081 (2019) ; see also State v. Brown , 185 Conn. App. 806, 810, 198 A.3d 687 (2018) (defendant bears burden of providing adequate record). The state argues that this issue is controlled by State v. Collins , 124 Conn. App. 249, 5 A.3d 492, cert. denied, 299 Conn. 906, 10 A.3d 523 (2010). In that case, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that a pretrial identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive, thus tainting an in-court identification at his violation of probation hearing.

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Collins, 124 Conn.App. 249, 253 n. 3, 5 A.3d 492, cert. denied, 299 Conn. 906, 10 A.3d 523 (2010). We conclude that the plaintiff's claim does not present the type of extraordinary circumstances that would warrant application of the plain error doctrine.

Decided November 4, 2010 The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 124 Conn. App. 249 (AC 30127), is denied. Deborah G. Stevenson, special public defender, in support of the petition.

Accordingly, the record is inadequate for appellate review because the court did not make any factual findings or legal conclusions regarding whether any evidence was illegally seized. See, e.g, State v. Collins , 124 Conn. App. 249, 256–57, 5 A.3d 492 (record inadequate for review where defendant failed to file motion to suppress and no evidentiary hearing held), cert. denied, 299 Conn. 906, 10 A.3d 523 (2010) ; State v. Necaise , 97 Conn. App. 214, 220, 904 A.2d 245 (declining to review claim regarding out-of-court identification due to inadequate record where defendant failed to file motion to suppress and to object at trial, and no evidentiary hearing held), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 942, 912 A.2d 478 (2006). Before trial, the defendant filed a "motion to return suppressed evidence."