Ives v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 192 Conn.App. 587

On April 4, 2016, police found Ives' vehicle in a ditch; officers observed signs of intoxication and Ives acted violently toward officers and paramedics. He was taken to a hospital for evaluation and treatment.
Hospital staff drew Ives’ blood as part of medical care; toxicology later showed a BAC of 0.31. A warrant was obtained for his medical records and he was arrested by warrant for OUI.
The Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, proceeding under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-227b(j), suspended Ives’ license and required an ignition interlock device based on the chemical analysis. Ives appealed administratively and then to Superior Court.
Ives argued the blood test was inadmissible in the administrative license-suspension hearing because § 14-227a(k) (criminal statute) conditions admissibility on an operator having suffered or allegedly suffered physical injury and his accident did not involve such an injury.
The commissioner and courts found that the 2009 amendment to § 14-227b(j) expanded admissibility in administrative proceedings to include situations where an officer determines the operator requires treatment or observation at a hospital even if no physical injury is apparent, and that the hospital blood draw met admissibility requirements.
Ives also raised an unpreserved constitutional challenge to admitting blood-test results absent § 14-227a(k)’s conditions; the court declined to review it because it was not raised administratively and did not meet Golding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 14-227b(j) requires the § 14-227a(k) "physical injury or alleged injury" precondition before admitting hospital blood-test results in an administrative license-suspension hearing	Ives: § 14-227b(j) incorporates § 14-227a(k) so an operator must have suffered or allegedly suffered a physical injury (and blood taken for diagnosis/treatment of that injury) for blood-test results to be admissible	Commissioner: § 14-227b(j) and § 14-227a(k) apply to different proceedings; the 2009 amendment to § 14-227b(j) expressly allows admission when an officer determines the operator requires treatment/observation at a hospital, regardless of injury	Court: Affirmed commissioner — statutes read together and legislative history show the 2009 amendment expanded admissibility in administrative proceedings to include hospital treatment/observation determinations absent an apparent physical injury
Whether admitting such blood-test results without satisfying § 14-227a(k) is unconstitutional	Ives: constitutional implications to admitting blood from uninjured drivers sent to hospitals by police	Commissioner: claim not preserved below; no specific constitutional defect shown	Court: Not reviewable — claim was not raised administratively and fails Golding (no specific, reviewable constitutional claim)

Jim's Auto Body v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 285 Conn. 794 (2008) (standard of review for agency decisions and de novo review on statutory construction)
Winsor v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 101 Conn. App. 674 (2007) (statutory construction principles and consideration of related statutes)
State v. Victor O., 320 Conn. 239 (2016) (presumption that related statutes should be read together to avoid conflict)
Canton v. Cadle Properties of Connecticut, Inc., 188 Conn. App. 36 (2019) (rejecting a literal reading that creates unworkable results)
Middlebury v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 283 Conn. 156 (2007) (use of legislative history to interpret ambiguous amendments)
State v. Gracia, 51 Conn. App. 4 (1998) (distinguishing administrative license suspension from criminal prosecution)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (test for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (2015) (modification and application of Golding)
Adams v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 182 Conn. App. 165 (2018) (administrative exhaustion/preservation rule)