Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** O'CONNELL, C. J., dissenting. I cannot concur with the majority decision. The commissioner, through his hearing officer, found that the plaintiff refused to submit to a breath test at a different police station, believing that he had already performed a test.1 The record shows that the plaintiff submitted to at least one, and possibly two, breath tests. It is clear that the equipment employed at state police Troop F malfunctioned and proved inadequate to furnish the police with a result that would effect a suspension of the plaintiff's operator's license. The plaintiff contends that, after submitting to two breath tests, he was not required to travel to another town to provide a third breath sample. I am unable to find, in the plain language of the statute, any suggestion that, if the police are unable to complete their responsibilities due to defective equipment, an operator's license will be suspended if the operator refuses to be taken from one town to another in order that further testing might be conducted. The record supports a conclusion that the plaintiff refused to go from Troop F in Westbrook to Old Saybrook, but such conduct does not amount to a refusal within the

statute. If a refusal to go from one town to another is to constitute the refusal referred to in the implied consent statute, this must be accomplished by the General Assembly and not by judicial construction. This court must construe the statute as it finds it without reference to whether the court feels that the law might have been improved by the inclusion of other provisions. Houston v. Warden, 169 Conn. 247, 252, 363 A.2d 121 (1975). In Bialowas v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 44 Conn. App. 702, 714

Download Mosher v. Kozlowski.pdf

Connecticut Law