DocketNumber: No. CV 95 055 30 94
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 14153
Judges: MALONEY, J.
Filed Date: 12/19/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
In his brief, the plaintiff raises a single issue: that his alleged refusal to submit to a breath test was improperly witnessed by the police, thereby rendering their report on the A-44 report form inadmissible.
The facts relevant to the plaintiff's argument are not in dispute and fully reflected in the record. Officer Bartolotta of the state police arrested the plaintiff and signed the A-44 form, under oath, as the arresting officer. Sergeant Accosta CT Page 14154 of the state police administered the oath to Bartolotta. Sergeant Accosta also signed the A-44 form as a witness to the plaintiff's refusal to submit to the breath test.
General Statutes §
The plaintiff admits that there is no case law or other authority that supports his argument. He relies simply on his interpretation of the statute, pointing out the significant penalty for refusing to submit to a test and the consequent importance of authenticating the police report of such refusal.
The plaintiff's argument is intriguing, but, in the court's view, not sustainable. Section
The plain purpose of the statutory provision in question is to require that someone witness the refusal in addition to the arresting officer. That requirement adds an extra measure of reliability to the arresting officer's report and points to a witness who may be summoned to the administrative hearing to testify if desired. The requirement was fully satisfied in this case, notwithstanding the officer who signed the report as the CT Page 14155 witness to the refusal also administered the oath to the arresting officer.
The hearing officer correctly determined that the A- 44 report form was admissible. As such, it provided sufficient evidence of the plaintiff's refusal to submit to a breath test.
The appeal is dismissed.
MALONEY, J.