Glanz v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
Citations
- 210 Conn. App. 515
Syllabus
The plaintiff, who had been arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of statute (§ 14- 227a), appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, suspending the plaintiff's motor vehicle operator's license and requiring the installation of ignition inter- lock devices on his motor vehicles pursuant to statute (§ 14-227b). Fol- lowing the plaintiff's arrest, a police officer administered a breath alcohol test on him four times. Although the second test yielded a higher blood alcohol content result than the first, it was invalidated. Only the first and fourth tests yielded valid results, the fourth producing a lower result than the first. At the administrative hearing before the defendant's hearing officer, the plaintiff presented the testimony of an expert, P, that the second test had been scientifically valid and that the plaintiff's blood alcohol content had been rising from the time he operated his motor vehicle to the time when the tests were performed. The hearing officer found that P's testimony was informative but not persuasive. The plaintiff appealed to the trial court, claiming that the hearing officer improperly relied on the presumption in § 14-227b (g) that the results of blood alcohol tests commenced within two hours of operation of a motor vehicle were sufficient to indicate blood alcohol content at the time of operation and that the hearing officer had ignored the exception in the criminal statute, § 14-227a (b), that, if the results of a second blood alcohol test indicated that the ratio of alcohol in the blood was 0.1 percent or less and was higher than the results of the first test, the defendant was required to show that the test results and analysis accurately reflected the plaintiff's blood alcohol content at the time of the alleged offense. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the appeal, and the plaintiff appealed to this court.
Judges: Bright; Alvord; Norcott
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.