177 Conn. App. 472
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- On Feb. 19, 2015 Fernschild was arrested after his car was disabled in a snowbank; officers observed disorientation and later smelled alcohol. EMS cleared any medical emergency; plaintiff refused medical treatment.
- Officers did not administer field sobriety tests because Fernschild could not stand and was uncooperative; he was transported to the station and processed.
- Officer Hamm completed an A-44 form and indicated the operator "refused" field sobriety and chemical (breath) testing; Sergeant Rhew signed a witnessing statement that the operator refused in his presence. A breath test printout read "test aborted refusal."
- The DMV hearing officer found probable cause, that Fernschild was operating the vehicle, and that he refused chemical testing, and ordered a six‑month license suspension under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14‑227b.
- Superior Court affirmed, finding multiple references to refusal provided substantial, corroborated evidence. Fernschild appealed to the Appellate Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hearing officer’s finding of "refusal" to submit to breath test was supported by substantial evidence | Fernschild: record contains only officers' conclusions of refusal without any factual recitation of words or conduct showing refusal | DMV: multiple, consistent references (A‑44, breath printout, reports, witness signature) suffice as substantial and corroborated evidence | Reversed: record lacks factual description of plaintiff’s words/conduct; mere conclusions are insufficient to support finding of refusal |
Key Cases Cited
- Winsor v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 101 Conn. App. 674 (holding that conclusory statements and A‑44 entries without factual description do not supply substantial evidence of refusal)
- Bialowas v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 44 Conn. App. 702 (explaining substantial evidence requires factual recitation, not just opinion or conclusions)
- Pizzo v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 62 Conn. App. 571 (noting refusal may be established by words or conduct)
- Roy v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 67 Conn. App. 394 (describing purpose and use of A‑44 form)