DocketNumber: No. 055716
Citation Numbers: 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 10303
Judges: PICKETT, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 12/18/1991
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Before addressing the claims made by the plaintiff in his initial brief, the court must first consider the claim of mootness since the suspension period has expired and the plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement. CT Page 10304
"It is a well-settled rule that the existence of an actual controversy is 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." (citations omitted) Phaneuf v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles,
The plaintiff claims that he is entitled to have his appeal decided upon the merits since increased administrative penalties will attach if he is subsequently stopped and processed for violation of
The mere fact that the suspension could result in a higher penalty for a second offense does not mean the case is not moot. See Parker v. Ellis,
In addition, no points are assessed against his driving record. Thus, there is no attendant effect on his insurance costs. Neither is there the danger that his license will be suspended simply by the addition of points to his record. See, Young v. Tyman,
In reality, the plaintiff is not subject to any "collateral consequences" at the present time. He will only be affected to the extent he chooses to again drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs and, upon being stopped by the police, either refuses to take a blood alcohol test or fails one. Thus, the plaintiff is in the position to avoid any consequence from this suspension simply by obeying the law and conforming his behavior to societal standards.
There is currently nothing this court can do for the plaintiff, other than that which the plaintiff can do for himself. His license will be reinstated upon his application to the Department of Motor Vehicles. And to the extent there are any additional potential consequences, he can avoid them through his own actions.
The plaintiff is not entitled to review on a moot question that is "capable of repetition, yet evading review." see Sobocinski v. Freedom of Information Commission,
Courts, legislators, editors and members of the public continue to lament the slaughter on the highways and the changes presented by individuals who operate while under the influence. In upholding the constitutionality of Michigan's use of highway sobriety checkpoints the court observed:
No one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it. Media reports of alcohol-related death and mutilation on the nation's roads are legion. The anecdotal is confirmed by the statistical. `Drunk drivers cause an annual death toll of over 25,000 and in the same time span cause nearly one million personal injuries and more than five billion dollars in property damage.'
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz,
As part of Connecticut's program to deter drunken driving, the general assembly has enacted an implied consent law. See Conn. Gen. Stat.
There clearly is no overriding penal or civil issue in this case which demands attention. As to whether the plaintiff could be similarity affected in the future, that issue is squarely in his hands. All he has to do is not drink and drive. No more, no less is being asked of Mr. Newell than any other citizen.
For the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed as moot.
PICKETT, JUDGE
Phaneuf v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles , 166 Conn. 449 ( 1974 )
Whiteside v. Burlant , 153 Conn. 204 ( 1965 )
Young v. Tynan , 148 Conn. 456 ( 1961 )
MacKey v. Montrym , 99 S. Ct. 2612 ( 1979 )
Breithaupt v. Abram , 77 S. Ct. 408 ( 1957 )
Parker v. Ellis , 80 S. Ct. 909 ( 1960 )
Tate v. Short , 91 S. Ct. 668 ( 1971 )
Perez. v. Campbell , 91 S. Ct. 1704 ( 1971 )