DocketNumber: No. CV 95 046 85 02
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4045
Judges: MALONEY, J.
Filed Date: 5/2/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The court scheduled oral argument on this appeal for March 26, 1996. The plaintiff requested a continuance. Subsequently, CT Page 4046 the parties agreed to waive oral argument. The court decides the appeal, therefore, on the basis of the record and the briefs of the parties.
In his brief, the plaintiff advances two arguments as the bases of his appeal: (1) that the hearing officer wrongly admitted into evidence the narrative supplement to the police officer's A-44 report and (2) that there was insufficient evidence to support the hearing officer's finding that the plaintiff had been operating the vehicle and that he refused to submit to a breath test.
With respect to the admission of the narrative supplement, the plaintiff argues that the report is hearsay, that it does not comply with the statute and regulations, and that it is unreliable. The plaintiff points out that the appropriate block on the A-44 form is not checked to indicate the officers statement that he is attaching a supplement and that it is also subject to the oath requirements. The plaintiff also argues that the supplement is not signed by the author.
The hearing officer admitted the narrative on the express basis that the police officer who wrote it printed his name on it and the supervising police officer endorsed it. The court has examined the document and concludes that the hearing officer had sufficient evidence to find that the police officer wrote his name on it, thereby authenticating the report as his own.
General Statutes §
Even if the narrative supplement of the police officer had not been admitted, the hearing officer had sufficient evidence in the plaintiff's own testimony at the hearing to support the finding that the plaintiff had been operating the vehicle and that he had refused to take the breath test. The court notes particularly that the plaintiff's testimony was to the effect that he insisted on contacting his attorney before agreeing to CT Page 4047 submit to the test. A person arrested for drunk driving may not, however, assert such a precondition to testing under §
A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes §
The appeal is dismissed.