Moore v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
2017 Conn. App. LEXIS 134
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Moore was stopped after suspected DUI; arrested after field sobriety tests and alleged signs of intoxication and belligerence. At the barracks he allegedly refused chemical testing and to sign processing documents.
- Trooper Appiah completed an A-44 report stating Moore was read the implied consent advisory and refused testing; Trooper Ehret endorsed the A-44 as a witness to the refusal.
- Moore requested police video via subpoena; Appiah failed to produce it because it had been destroyed under routine retention policy before he obtained it.
- At the administrative hearing, officers testified to the A-44 contents and to Moore’s refusal; Moore testified he repeatedly asked for a breath test and that the advisory was not read.
- The hearing officer found (inter alia) probable cause, arrest, and refusal to submit to chemical testing, and suspended Moore’s license for six months; Superior Court affirmed on UAPA review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supported finding of refusal to submit to chemical test | Moore: A-44 and officer testimony contradicted by his own testimony; hearing officer should have credited him | Commissioner: A-44, officers’ testimony and endorsements provide substantial evidence of refusal | Held: Finding supported by substantial evidence; credibility resolved by hearing officer |
| Whether destruction of police video violated Moore’s due process/right to present a defense | Moore: Spoliation of video warranted adverse inference (Beers) or due process relief (Asherman) because video likely helpful | Commissioner: Video destroyed per routine policy; no proof of intentional spoliation; no entitlement to inference | Held: No due process violation; destruction was negligent/routine, not intentional; Moore fails both Asherman and Beers tests |
| Which spoliation test applies (Asherman v. Beers) | Moore: Civil spoliation standard (Beers) should apply | Commissioner: Asherman appropriate for due process balancing; in any event Moore cannot prevail under either test | Held: Court need not choose; Moore fails under either standard because destruction was not shown intentional and prejudice not established |
| Whether adverse inference was required or would have altered outcome | Moore: An adverse inference would have undermined A-44 and officers’ testimony and reversed suspension | Commissioner: Any inference is permissive and not compelled; record supports suspension regardless | Held: Even if permissive inference were available, record still supports the suspension; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Asherman, 193 Conn. 695 (Conn.) (spoliation/due process balancing test for missing police evidence in criminal matters)
- Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 236 Conn. 769 (Conn.) (civil spoliation rule allowing permissive adverse inference when destruction was intentional and other factors met)
- Murphy v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 254 Conn. 333 (Conn.) (scope of UAPA review of DMV/implied consent decisions)
- Schallenkamp v. DelPonte, 229 Conn. 31 (Conn.) (affirming that license-suspension issues under implied consent must be sustained if supported by substantial evidence)
- Spitz v. Board of Examiners of Psychologists, 127 Conn. App. 108 (Conn. App.) (definition and application of substantial evidence standard)
- Williams v. State, 124 Conn. App. 759 (Conn. App.) (application of Beers factors and permissive nature of adverse inference)
- Dumont v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 48 Conn. App. 635 (Conn. App.) (credibility and factfinding lie with administrative agency)
- Church Homes, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 250 Conn. 297 (Conn.) (reviewing record and deference to administrative factfinding)