Driver sought review from commissioner of motor vehicles decision to disqualify driver for life from holding a commercial driver’s license, following driver’s second arrest for driving under the influence (DUI). The Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain, dismissed the case. Driver appealed. The Appellate Court held that:  the statute permitting imposition of lifetime disqualification was not retroactively applied to driver, and  statutory scheme requiring operators of vehicles of certain weight to obtain commercial driver’s licenses, subject to lifetime disqualification, did not violate equal protection rights. Affirmed.
Motorist sought review of decision of Commissioner of Motor Vehicles ordering a six-month suspension of his license to operate a motor vehicle as a result of his refusal to submit to a chemical test of his breath while he was waiting to speak with his attorney who was allegedly at police station. The Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain, dismissed. Motorist appealed. The Appellate Court held that motorist’s refusal to take breath test was a refusal under implied consent law. Affirmed.
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) revoked motorist’s driver’s license for six months. Motorist appealed. The Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain, dismissed appeal. Motorist appealed. The Appellate Court held that trial court’s finding that motorist’s appeal of DMV decision was untimely was not clearly erroneous. Affirmed.
Driver sought review of decision of the commissioner of motor vehicles suspending his motor vehicle operator’s license for ten months and his commercial driver’s license for life. The Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain, dismissed appeal. Driver appealed. The Appellate Court, Gruendel, J., held that:  failure of implied consent form to disclose the consequences of refusing or taking a breath test on commercial driver’s license did not preclude form’s admission at driver’s license suspension hearing;  admission of signed implied consent form that incorporated by reference an attached police report that was not yet signed was harmless error;  evidence supported finding that driver’s blood alcohol content was tested within two hours of his operation of a motor vehicle; and  lifetime disqualification from holding a commercial license applied to driver with two or more alcohol test refusals and/or failures arising from two or more separate incidents, even though driver had not obtained a commercial driver’s license at the time of his first license suspension. Affirmed.
Drivers brought administrative appeals, challenging suspension of their licenses by commissioner of motor vehicles. After hearing, the Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain, dismissed drivers’ appeals. Drivers appealed. The Supreme Court held that evidence that drivers failed chemical alcohol test administered using breath test machine was sufficient to show that drivers had elevated blood alcohol content. Affirmed.
Defendant pled nolo contendere in the Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, geographical area number seven, to illegally operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor or drugs or while having an elevated blood alcohol content, this after the commissioner of motor vehicles had already suspended his license as result of the same incident. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court held that administrative suspension of defendant’s driver’s license did not by itself constitute a conviction for double jeopardy purposes. Affirmed.
Defendant was convicted after trial to the court, in the Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. Defendant appealed. The Appellate Court held that motorist was ineligible for pretrial alcohol education program, because motorist held a commercial driver’s license when State filed its information formally charging her with the offense, though thereafter she voluntarily caused the rescission of her commercial driver’s license by returning it to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Affirmed.
There are no additional resources.