348 Conn. 778
Conn.2024Background
- Anthony J. Marshall III was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
- Under Connecticut General Statutes § 14-227b(c), an arresting officer must prepare and mail a report to the DMV within three business days for the report to be automatically admissible at license suspension hearings without the officer's testimony.
- In this case, the incident report was not completed or mailed by the officer until five business days after the arrest.
- At the administrative hearing, the report (the only evidence) was admitted over Marshall’s objection regarding noncompliance with the three-day requirement, and his license was suspended.
- The trial court and Appellate Court ruled that the three-day requirement was directory, not mandatory, finding sufficient reliability in the report.
- Upon certification, the Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed whether strict compliance with the three-day rule was required for admissibility without officer testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of noncompliant incident report under § 14-227b(c) | Report prepared/mailed after three days is inadmissible absent officer testimony | Directory requirement; report is admissible so long as it bears indicia of reliability | Requirement is mandatory; report inadmissible without officer if statutory timing unmet |
| Effect of noncompliance with statutory procedure | Strict compliance ensures reliability and due process | Substantial compliance/informal reliability is sufficient | Failure to comply defeats admissibility exception; officer testimony required |
| Appellate Court's view of statutory language | Statute uses mandatory 'shall'; lack of negative language not controlling | Absence of prohibitory language makes it directory | Substantive nature of statute demands mandatory compliance |
| Substantial evidence for suspension | Only evidence was inadmissible report; suspension unsupported | No issue if report deemed admissible | Without admissible evidence, suspension lacks basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Volck v. Muzio, 204 Conn. 507 (admissibility of incident reports as a hearsay exception if statutory procedures are followed)
- Fishbein v. Kozlowski, 252 Conn. 38 (license suspension proceedings must balance public safety and due process)
- Do v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 330 Conn. 651 (compliance with statutory admissibility requirements as basis for report evidence)