DocketNumber: No. CV 92 0290394
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1759
Judges: WILLIAM B. LEWIS, JUDGE
Filed Date: 2/4/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The hearing officer found the four issues referred to in General Statutes
The plaintiff then appealed to this court pursuant to General Statutes
The criteria for ordering a stay of administrative action pending an appeal were outlined in Griffin Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals and Health Care,
The request by the plaintiff for a stay appears to be based on two specific arguments. The first is that the A-44 report form (Officer's DWI Arrest and Alcohol Test Refusal or Failure Report) did not have any check mark on a section entitled "Probable Cause to Arrest," and secondly that the officer had no independent knowledge of the operation of a motor vehicle by the plaintiff, but rather relied upon inadmissable hearsay.
The officer's report stated he saw the plaintiff attempting to back up with two flat tires, that when he exited his vehicle the plaintiff needed assistance in walking, that he refused to take any field sobriety tests, and that he had slurred speech. This suffices, in my opinion, for a finding by the defendant's hearing officer that the police officer had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff, and the officer's failure to check a particular box on the A-44 form is of no particular significance.
With respect to operation, the arresting officer specifically reported that he witnessed the plaintiff operating his motor vehicle, and hence he did not rely on hearsay to reach this conclusion.
The plaintiff's other argument is that there has been no showing that the Trumbull Center Parking lot has space for more that ten (10) motor vehicles. I do not consider this a fatal defect at this stage of the proceedings.
This case is distinguishable from Zadroga v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles,
Hence I believe the stay should not be vacated as the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is likely to prevail when this appeal is ultimately adjudicated. Nor has the plaintiff shown that his harm is irreparable, since we will issue scheduling orders that insure a prompt hearing on his appeal. CT Page 1761
The request for a stay of the suspension is denied. The defendant Commissioner is given to February 28, 1992 to return the record, the plaintiff shall file his brief by March 16, 1992, I and the defendant shall reply by April 10, 1992. This abbreviated scheduling order will insure a prompt resolution of the plaintiff's appeal. Failure of the defendant to comply with this schedule will result in a reconsideration of plaintiff's motion for a stay.
So Ordered.
Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 4th day of February, 1992.
WILLIAM B. LEWIS, JUDGE