Summary
In Piorek v. DelPonte, 28 Conn. App. 911 (1992), the Appellate Court affirmed the finding of a refusal even though the plaintiff was not allowed to telephone his attorney.
Summary of this case from Olechny v. Commissioner of Motor VehiclesOpinion
(10712)
Argued May 6, 1992
Decision released July 28, 1992
Appeal from the decision of the defendant suspending the plaintiff's license to operate a motor vehicle, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford and tried to the court, Maloney, J.; judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Donald G. Leis, Jr., for the appellant (plaintiff).
Priscilla J. Green, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).
The defendant appeals from the judgment of the trial court upholding the suspension of his driver's license for six months pursuant to General Statutes 14-227b. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court improperly determined that he refused to submit to a chemical test or analysis when he requested that he first be allowed to telephone an attorney pursuant to 14-227b (b).
General Statutes 14-227b (f) limits the issues in an administrative license suspension hearing to the following: (1) Did the police officer have probable cause to arrest the person for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug or both; (2) was such person placed under arrest; (3) did such person refuse to submit to such test or analysis; and (4) was such person operating the motor vehicle. Volck v. Muzio, 204 Conn. 507, 511-12, 529 A.2d 177 (1987); Buckley v. Muzio, 200 Conn. 1, 6, 509 A.2d 489 (1986); see also Kramer v. DelPonte, 26 Conn. App. 101, 102, 598 A.2d 670 (1991) (per curiam) (trial may not go beyond the four limited suspension criteria of 14-227b [f]).
We have fully considered the plaintiff's claims and have thoroughly reviewed the parties' briefs as well as the record of this case. We conclude that the trial court's finding that the plaintiff refused to submit to the test was reasonably supported by the evidence.