DocketNumber: No. CV96 056 20 64 CT Page 7000
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 6999
Judges: MALONEY, J.
Filed Date: 12/23/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The plaintiff advances two arguments in support of her appeal: (1) that the hearing officer erroneously determined that the police had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff on the drunk driving charge and (2) that the hearing officer did not give sufficient weight to the report of the plaintiff's doctor, which was admitted in evidence.
At the administrative hearing, both the plaintiff and the police officer who arrested her appeared and testified. Their testimony conflicted on the circumstances that led to the plaintiff's arrest. The testimony of the police officer clearly supported his contention that he had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff. The hearing officer plainly credited the police officer's testimony and discounted the plaintiff's testimony.
"The `substantial evidence' rule governs judicial review of administrative factfinding under General Statutes §
"If the administrative record provides substantial evidence upon which the hearing officer could reasonably have based his finding . . . the decision must be upheld."Conn. Building Wrecking Co. v. Carrothers,
The court has reviewed the record in the present case. As indicated, the testimony of the police officer provided abundant evidence of probable cause for the plaintiff's arrest. In accordance with the familiar principles of administrative law summarized above, the hearing officer was entitled to rely on that testimony and to disbelieve the plaintiff's testimony. The court may not second guess that factfinding process.
The same principles govern the decision on the issue of the doctor's report. That report stated that the asthma inhalant that the plaintiff claimed to be using might have skewed the results of the breath test. The plaintiff's assertion that she had used the inhalant was in question, however, and the doctor's report was notably equivocal. These were factual issues for the hearing officer to resolve, and the court may not overrule his decision.
The appeal is dismissed.
MALONEY, J.