Peruta v. Commissioner of Public Safety
128 Conn. App. 777
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Peruta holds a pistol permit issued by the Department of Public Safety and travels statewide.
- In July 2007 he emailed the department and the board of firearms permit examiners with nine questions about open carrying and related limits.
- The department replied that it could not answer and suggested consulting an attorney.
- Peruta filed a Superior Court declaratory judgment action naming the department, the board, and the Council; he sought a ruling on whether open carrying is lawful and whether permits may be confiscated upon arrest.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding Peruta did not exhaust administrative remedies and that futility was not established; Peruta appealed.
- We affirm, holding (1) the July 2007 email did not constitute a petition for a declaratory ruling, and (2) exhaustion was not excused, and petitioning the department would not be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Peruta exhausted administrative remedies for declaratory relief | Peruta argues email petition to department sufficed despite lack of form/rules | Department rules not yet promulgated; email did not meet § 4-176 requirements | Email not a petition; exhaustion required |
| Whether exceptional-circumstances doctrine excuses non-exhaustion | Facial constitutional challenge to § 29-28(b) permits court review without exhaustion | Exceptionals not established; issues inadequately briefed | Exceptional-circumstances review not warranted; claim inadequately briefed |
| Whether petition to department would be futile or inadequate | Department biased or lacks authority to grant relief sought | Remedy not futile; department can interpret § 29-35 and grant declaratory relief if appropriate | Petition to department would not be futile; department has authority to interpret relevant statutes |
Key Cases Cited
- Cannata v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 239 Conn. 124 (1996) (facts-based inquiry for petition for declaratory ruling)
- Hill v. State Employees Retirement Commission, 83 Conn.App. 599 (2004) (defines § 4-176 ground rules for petitions)
- Liberty Mobilehome Sales, Inc. v. Cassidy, 6 Conn.App. 723 (1986) (standards for administrative exhaustion)
- Wallingford Center Associates v. Bd. of Tax Review, 68 Conn.App. 803 (2002) (futility where agency cannot grant relief without opposing positions)
- Greenwich v. Liquor Control Commission, 191 Conn. 528 (1983) (futility exception limited; remedy may be unavailable if futile)
- Connecticut Mobile Home Assn., Inc. v. Jensen's, Inc., 178 Conn. 586 (1979) (exhaustion not required where remedy would be futile)
- State v. Claudio C., 125 Conn.App. 588 (2010) (adequacy of briefing required for constitutional issues)
- State v. Saunders, 114 Conn.App. 493 (2009) (caution against reviewing inadequately briefed claims)
- Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co. v. State, 246 Conn. 313 (1998) (agency interpretation of statutes guided by its statutory role)
- McDonald v. Chicago, U.S. , 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment rights; relevance to open carry debate)