Opinion

The named plaintiff, Harold Burbank, and the plaintiffs Marianne Burbank and A.B.1 appeal2 from the judgment of the trial court denying their application for an injunction prohibiting the defendant, the board of education of the town of Canton (board), from implementing its policy of using law enforcement personnel with drug-sniffing dogs to conduct unannounced, suspicionless searches on school property without a warrant.3 Because we conclude that the plaintiffs’ claims are moot, we dismiss their appeal.

*836The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our analysis of the mootness issue. On June 5, 2008, following a request by the board and Kevin D. Case, the superintendent of public schools of the town of Canton, officers of the Canton police department conducted a sweep of unattended cars and lockers at Canton High School and Canton Middle School using drug-sniffing dogs. The purpose of the warrantless, sus-picionless sweep, which was expressly authorized by the board’s policies, was to detect the presence of illegal substances on school property. The students were informed at the beginning of their first period class that the sweep would occur and that they were to remain in their classrooms during the sweep unless there was an emergency. The sweep began near the end of the first period and lasted approximately one hour. As a result of certain contraband found during the sweep, one student was arrested.

Thereafter, on April 3, 2009, Harold Burbank and Marianne Burbank commenced the present action against the board on their own behalf and as parents and next friends of their child, A.B., who, at the time of the drug sweep, was a student at Canton High School. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the board from implementing its policy of conducting warrantless, suspi-cionless sweeps on school property with drug-sniffing dogs or, alternatively, to require school officials to provide at least forty-eight hours notice to parents prior to such a sweep. According to the complaint, the board’s policy of conducting unannounced sweeps on school property violated (1) the Burbanks’ rights as parents to manage the safety and education of their child under *837the due process clause of article first, § 8,4 of the Connecticut constitution, and (2) A.B.’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under article first, §§ 8 and 9,5 of the Connecticut constitution.6

On September 14, 2009, following a hearing on the plaintiffs’ application for an injunction, the trial court issued a memorandum of decision denying the application. The court declined to review the plaintiffs’ state constitutional claims because they had been inadequately briefed.7 The court, however, considered the plaintiffs’ rights under the federal constitution, treating the plaintiffs’ federal and state constitutional rights as coextensive for purposes of the present case. The trial court concluded that the board’s policy of having law enforcement personnel use drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless, suspicionless sweeps on school property without advance notice to parents did not violate the plaintiffs’ federal constitutional rights.8 Because the *838trial court determined that the plaintiffs could not prevail on the merits of their claims, it denied their application for injunctive relief.

On appeal, the plaintiffs contend that the trial court improperly failed to review their state constitutional claims and, further, that the board’s policy of allowing law enforcement personnel to conduct the sweeps violates the state constitution, at least in the absence of advance notice of the sweeps.9 During oral argument before this court, however, the plaintiffs acknowledged that A.B. had graduated from Canton High School in June, 2010. As a consequence, although the plaintiffs contend that this appeal raises significant issues concerning the scope of parental rights and the rights of students to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the state constitution, we must dismiss it as moot because A.B. no longer is subject to the policies of the board and because the plaintiffs’ claims *839do not fall within the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine.10

“Mootness implicates [this] court’s subject matter jurisdiction and is thus a threshold matter for us to resolve. ... It is a well-settled general rule that the existence of an actual controversy is an essential requisite to appellate jurisdiction; it is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow. ... An actual controversy must exist not only at the time the appeal is taken, but also throughout the pen-dency of the appeal. . . . When, during the pendency of an appeal, events have occurred that preclude an appellate court from granting any practical relief through its disposition of the merits, a case has become moot. . . . [Under such circumstances, the case can not be reviewed] unless the defendant’s claim falls under an exception to the mootness doctrine ....

“The mootness doctrine does not preclude a court from addressing an issue that is capable of repetition, yet evading review. . . . [F] or an otherwise moot question to qualify for review under the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception, it must meet three requirements. First, the challenged action, or the effect of the challenged action, by its very nature must be of a limited duration so that there is a strong likelihood that the substantial majority of cases raising a question about its validity will become moot before appellate litigation can be concluded. Second, there must be a reasonable likelihood that the question presented in the pending case will arise again in the future, and that it will affect either the same complaining party or a *840reasonably identifiable group for whom that party can be said to act as surrogate. Third, the question must have some public importance. Unless all three requirements are met, the appeal must be dismissed as moot.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dutkiewicz v. Dutkiewicz, 289 Conn. 362, 366-67, 957 A.2d 821 (2008).

“The first element in the analysis pertains to the length of the challenged action . . . [and whether there are] functionally insurmountable time constraints [to full appellate review]. . . . The basis for this element derives from the nature of the exception. If an action or its effects [are] not of inherently limited duration, the action can be reviewed the next time it arises, when it will present an ongoing live controversy. Moreover, if the question presented is not strongly likely to become moot in the substantial majority of cases in which it arises, the urgency of deciding the pending case is significantly reduced.” (Citations omitted.) Loisel v. Rowe, 233 Conn. 370, 383-84, 660 A.2d 323 (1995). This requirement is satisfied when there is a strong likelihood that the inherently limited duration of the action will cause a substantial majority of cases raising the same issue to become moot prior to final appellate resolution. See Sweeney v. Sweeney, 271 Conn. 193, 201-202, 856 A.2d 997 (2004).

As we noted previously, A.B., a student when this action was commenced, graduated from Canton High School in June, 2010. Consequently, A.B. no longer is subject to the board’s policies. Thus, neither A.B. nor A.B.’s parents can be affected personally by any decision of this court granting them the injunctive relief that they have sought, namely, prohibiting the board from implementing its policy of allowing law enforcement personnel to conduct warrantless sweeps on school property with drug-sniffing dogs or, alternatively, requiring that the board provide at least forty-*841eight hours notice of any such sweep.11 “In determining mootness, the dispositive question is whether a successful appeal would benefit the plaintiff ... in any way.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539, 556, 979 A.2d 469 (2009). Because our resolution of the plaintiffs’ appeal in their favor would not benefit them in any way, their claims are moot.

Furthermore, we are not persuaded that the claims that the plaintiffs raise in this appeal qualify for review under the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception to the mootness doctrine. It is true, of course, that the opportunity of a parent or a student to litigate a claim challenging the board’s policy is inherently limited in duration due to the fact that the effect of the policy on any particular student necessarily terminates upon that student’s graduation. This limitation, however, is not so substantial, when compared to the time necessary to conclude appellate litigation, that it is very likely to cause a significant majority of cases raising a challenge to the policy to become moot in advance of final appellate resolution. See Sweeney v. Sweeney, supra, 271 Conn. 201-202. This is so because the board’s policy concerning the sweeps applies to all students at Canton High School and Canton Middle School. Thus, an action challenging the policy could present a live controversy for as long as six years before becoming moot if that action were to be brought by a first year middle school student and the student’s parents. Indeed, it appears that the present action itself would not have been rendered moot if one of the original plaintiffs, whose child was a student at Canton Middle School when the action was filed, had remained a party to the action.12 Furthermore, for purposes of our analy*842sis, it is significant to note that, in the present case, only approximately one and one-half years had elapsed from the time that the plaintiffs commenced this action, on April 3, 2009, until the date that this court heard oral argument in this appeal.13 Because so many Canton middle and high school students and their parents with standing to bring an action seeking to enjoin the board from implementing its policy likely would be able to obtain a final resolution of their appeal prior to the students’ graduation, we cannot conclude that most actions challenging the policy would become moot before the appeals process has been completed. On the contrary, it is reasonable to expect that most such appeals would be resolved before the case becomes moot. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are not entitled to consideration of their appeal under the exception applicable to cases that, although moot, are capable of repetition, yet evading review. The plaintiffs’ appeal therefore must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.