DocketNumber: No. CV91-509010
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6147
Judges: MALONEY, J.
Filed Date: 6/25/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
In his brief and at oral argument, the plaintiff has asserted a single basis for his appeal. He contends that there was insufficient evidence for the hearing officer to find that the police officer was legally entitled to stop the plaintiff prior to developing probable cause for his arrest on the drunk driving charge.
At the administrative hearing, the police officer and the plaintiff testified, and the police report of the plaintiff's arrest was made part of the record. The police officer testified that he observed the plaintiff operating his vehicle on Woodcreek Road in Bethlehem shortly after midnight on October 5, 1991. He testified that as he followed the vehicle it swerved suddenly from the travel lane to the right shoulder and then returned to the roadway. He then observed the vehicle, after stopping at a stop sign, turn on Judge Lane, where it twice veered to the right shoulder while the operator made hand signals to the police officer to pass. He testified that he considered the vehicle's operation in this fashion to be "erratic" and that it indicated to him that "something may have been amiss." He further testified that "[m]y experience as a police officer indicated to me that it could quite possibly be an intoxicated driver." Most of this testimony was adduced under vigorous cross examination by the plaintiff's attorney.
A police officer need not have probable cause to stop a motor vehicle. A brief investigatory stop is proper even in the absence of probable cause if the police have a "reasonable and articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to CT Page 6148 commit a crime." State v. Lamme,
For all of the reasons set forth above, the appeal is dismissed.
Maloney, J.