January 22, 2018
from the decision by the defendant suspending the
plaintiff's motor vehicle operator's license, brought
to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Britain
and tried to the court, Huddleston, J.; judgment
dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to
this court. Affirmed.
Jonathan Ross Sills, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Christine Jean-Louis, assistant attorney general, with whom,
on the brief, was George Jepsen, attorney general, for the
Alvord, Keller and Bishop, Js.
plaintiff, Nicholas Adams, appeals from the judgment of the
trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, the
Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (commissioner), dismissing his
appeal from the decision of the commissioner to suspend his
motor vehicle operator's license, pursuant to General
Statutes § 14-227b,  for forty-five days and requiring
an ignition interlock device in his motor vehicle for one
year. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in
finding that (1) he was operating a motor vehicle; (2) he
refused to submit to chemical testing; and (3) the police had
probable cause to arrest him for operating under the
influence in violation of General Statutes §
14-227a. We affirm the judgment of the trial
following facts and procedural history are relevant to this
appeal. On May 14, 2016, the plaintiff was arrested and
charged with operating under the influence of liquor or drugs
in violation of § 14-227a. The plaintiff submitted
to a Breathalyzer test, but refused a urine test. As a result
of this refusal, and in accordance with § 14-227b, the
plaintiff's motor vehicle operator's license was
suspended by the Department of Motor Vehicles (department)
for forty-five days, effective June 13, 2016, and he was
required to install and maintain an ignition interlock device
in his vehicle for one year thereafter.
the plaintiff requested, and was granted, an administrative
hearing to contest the license suspension. The administrative
hearing was held on June 8, 2016, before a department hearing
officer, acting on behalf of the commissioner. The hearing
officer rendered a decision the same day as the hearing,
ordering the suspension of the plaintiff's motor vehicle
operator's license or operating privilege for forty-five
days and the installation of an ignition interlock device for
one year thereafter.
17, 2016, the plaintiff filed an appeal in the Superior Court
pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183, challenging the
findings of the hearing officer that (1) there was probable
cause to arrest him for operating a motor vehicle while under
the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or both; (2)
he refused to submit to a chemical testing or analysis; and
(3) he was operating the motor vehicle. A one day trial took
place before the court on December 1, 2016. On March 7, 2017,
the court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and rendered
judgment in favor of the commissioner. This appeal followed.
carefully reviewed the record, the briefs submitted by the
parties, and applicable law, we find no error in the trial
court's determination. Accordingly, we adopt the well
reasoned and clearly articulated decision of the trial court,
en toto, as the opinion of this court.
Adams v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, Superior
Court, judicial district of New Britain, Docket No.
CV-16-6033742-S (March 7, 2017) (reprinted at 182 Conn.App.
169); see also Samakaab v. Dept. of Social
Services, 178 Conn.App. 52, 54, 173 A.3d 1004 (2017).
judgment is affirmed.
MOTOR VEHICLES [*]
Court, Judicial District of New Britain File No.
filed March 7, 2017
of decision on plaintiff's appeal from decision by
defendant suspending the plaintiff's motor vehicle
operator's license. Appeal dismissed.
plaintiff, Nicholas Adams, appeals from the decision of the
defendant Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (commissioner)
suspending his driver's license for forty-five days and
requiring him to install and maintain an ignition interlock
device for one year for operating a motor vehicle under the
influence of drugs or alcohol. The plaintiff asserts that the
hearing officer violated his right to due process, that the
record lacks substantial evidence that he was operating a
motor vehicle, that there was no probable cause for his
arrest, and that there is insufficient evidence to support
the finding that he refused a urine test. Most of these
claims were not asserted in the hearing and ...