182 Conn. App. 165
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Around 4:44 a.m. on May 14, 2016, police found Adams beside a car with major front-end damage after a reported collision with a telephone pole; Adams told the officer he hit a traffic cone and said the accident occurred about 4:45 a.m.
- Officer Armstrong observed signs of impairment (drowsy appearance, droopy eyelids, constricted pupils, red conjunctiva), administered three standardized field sobriety tests which Adams failed, and arrested him by 5:14 a.m.
- At the station Adams voluntarily took a breath test (5:50 a.m.) which read 0.000%; he was then asked for a urine sample, attempted to contact counsel, spoke with a family member, and the report states he "elected to refuse" the urine test.
- Adams was charged under § 14-227a; the DMV suspended his license 45 days and required an ignition interlock device for one year; Adams requested an administrative hearing and appealed the DMV decision to superior court after the hearing officer upheld suspension.
- The hearing officer found probable cause to arrest for OUI, that Adams was placed under arrest, that he refused the second (urine) test, and that he was operating the vehicle; the court reviewed under the UAPA substantial-evidence standard and dismissed Adams’s appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was substantial evidence Adams was operating the vehicle | Adams: no officer saw him driving and lay witness statement unsworn; therefore operation not proven | Commissioner: Adams’s own statements to officer about driving and the damaged car provide probative evidence of operation | Court: Held operation proven by Adams’s statements and circumstantial evidence |
| Whether police had probable cause to arrest for operating under the influence | Adams: signs could be explained by fatigue/shock; tests designed for alcohol, not narcotics; temporal nexus lacking | Commissioner: totality (crash, flight, inconsistent explanations, impairment signs, failed sobriety tests) supported probable cause and nexus | Court: Held probable cause existed and temporal nexus established |
| Whether there is substantial evidence Adams refused the urine test | Adams: A-44 is conclusory, contains a date discrepancy (5/19/16) and lacks third-party witnessing on May 14 | Commissioner: narrative and sworn reports show an express refusal on May 14; date entry was a clerical error; endorsement by witness present | Court: Held record provides reliable, probative evidence of an express refusal despite the form’s date error |
| Whether officer had reasonable cause to request urine after a 0.000 breath test | Adams: no basis to switch to urine—breath negative; no evidence of other drug indicators sufficient | Commissioner: crash, leaving scene, impaired performance on FSTs, pupil/eye signs, incoherent explanations gave reasonable cause to seek urine to detect drugs | Court: Held requesting a urine test was reasonable under the circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 254 Conn. 333 (Conn. 2000) (UAPA review and substantial-evidence standard for DMV decisions)
- O’Rourke v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 33 Conn. App. 501 (Conn. App. 1994) (administrative hearings require probative, reliable evidence; lower burden than criminal cases)
- Pizzo v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 62 Conn. App. 571 (Conn. App. 2001) (probable cause may rest on circumstantial as well as direct evidence)
- Dalzell v. State, 96 Conn. App. 515 (Conn. App. 2006) (symptoms consistent with innocuous causes can undermine probable-cause findings)
- Bialowas v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 44 Conn. App. 702 (Conn. App. 1997) (distinguishes express refusals from failures to provide adequate samples; documentation required for refusals by conduct)
- Mailhot v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 54 Conn. App. 62 (Conn. App. 1999) (refusal requires presence of arresting officer and a third-party witness)
- Winsor v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 101 Conn. App. 674 (Conn. App. 2007) (third-party witness must be physically present when refusal occurs)
- Volck v. Muzio, 204 Conn. 507 (Conn. 1987) (purpose of statutory report requirements is to provide reliability for admitting arrest reports in license-suspension hearings)