Posts tagged with "operating under the influence"

Administrative Decision to Suspend Plaintiff’s License After DUI Arrest Upheld

Last February, a Superior Court of Connecticut dismissed a plaintiff’s appeal of an administrative decision to suspend his license, despite his assertion that the breath test readings were inaccurate.

Case Background

This case arose from an incident that occurred on May 8, 2010. Police observed the plaintiff revving the engine of his car and then traveling at a high rate of speed down a public road. After police initiated a traffic stop, he admitted that he drank two beers at a bar. The officer observed the “strong distinct odor of an alcoholic beverage” and the plaintiff’s bloodshot, glassy eyes. The plaintiff failed three field sobriety tests and was then arrested. At the police station, he agreed to submit to breath tests, which returned blood alcohol content (BAC) readings of 0.206 and 0.135.

The police notified the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), who held an administrative hearing to determine whether to suspend the plaintiff’s license. An expert witness for the plaintiff testified that the BAC readings might be unreliable because the machine’s gas calibration readings were above the acceptable level of 0.105. Nonetheless, the hearing officer found that the police arrested the plaintiff while he was operating under the influence and that the Intoxilyzer machine was working properly at the time of the plaintiff’s tests. He ordered that the plaintiff’s license be suspended for ten months.

The Appeal

The plaintiff appealed this decision to the Superior Court, which ordered the DMV to hold another hearing regarding the reliability of the Intoxilyzer used on the night of the plaintiff’s arrest. After additional testimony, the hearing officer made the same findings, and credited the State toxicologist’s conclusion that the machine was properly working. The State toxicologist stated that these higher-end readings simply indicated that the gas canister needed to be replaced, but that this did not impact the subsequent BAC readings from the plaintiff’s tests. The hearing officer again suspended the plaintiff’s license for ten months, and the plaintiff appealed this decision, claiming he was not adequately tested.

When a court reviews the rulings of an administrative agency, it is guided by the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA). The court must determine whether the agency issued an order that was unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal, or which constituted an abuse of discretion. Pursuant to the substantial evidence rule of UAPA, administrative findings are upheld so long as the record “affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.” It is the plaintiff’s burden to prove “that substantial rights possessed by him were prejudiced because the administrative decision was clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.”

The Court’s Decision

In this case, the Superior Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim of inadequate testing. It found that under the substantial evidence rule, the hearing officer made an appropriate determination that the intoxilyzer readings were accurate. In addition, the plaintiff did not provide any evidence that his own BAC readings were affected by the higher-range calibration readings. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

When faced with a charge of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (a.k.a. driving under the influence) or license suspension, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

Operating Under the Influence in Connecticut

If you are facing allegations of Operating Under the Influence (“OUI”) under Connecticut Law, you must understand the charges you are facing.  These offenses are taken seriously and can result in significant penalties including community service, probation, fines, license restrictions, and even jail time – depending on the facts and circumstances of your case.  The actions you take, or fail to take, before, during, and after you are charged can alter the outcome of the case significantly.

In the event that this is not your first-time facing allegations of Operating Under the Influence in Connecticut, the consequences become significantly more serious.  Here is what you need to know about OUI penalties in Connecticut:

1st Offense

Under Connecticut law, any person who violates the operating under the influence statute for the first time will be charged with a class B misdemeanor.  While this may sound relatively insignificant to you, the statute imposes additional penalties including a mandatory minimum of forty-eight (48) hours in jail and a fine of between five hundred and one thousand ($500-$1000) dollars.  If you are facing charges in addition to the OUI charge, expect even more consequences.  

2nd Offense

Any person who violates the operating under the influence statute for the second time in Connecticut will face even more serious consequences.  Under the statute, an OUI conviction as a second offender will result in a felony, rather than the misdemeanor charge given to first-time offenders.  The statute additionally imposes a much more severe mandatory minimum of one hundred twenty (120) days in jail and a fine somewhere between one and four ($1,000-$4,000) dollars.  Again, additional charges may result in even more penalties.

3rd Offense 

By the time you are charged with your third OUI in Connecticut, the law is not on your side and you can expect serious consequences.  If your choices have led to yet another OUI arrest, under Connecticut law you will be charged with an even more serious class E felony.  A conviction of a Class E felonies can mean up to three (3) years in prison.  The statute additionally requires a mandatory minimum of one (1) year in jail and a fine somewhere between two and five thousand ($2,000-$5,000) dollars.

Additional Consequences

On top of the already serious consequences, additional penalties may include community service, the requirement to complete a criminal diversionary program including the Alcohol Education Program, probation, conditional discharge outlining the terms of your release from custody, points on your license, the installation of an ignition interlock device on your vehicle requiring you to submit to a breath test every time you operate your vehicle, other license restrictions, and license suspension.   With so much at stake, it is imperative that you seek the assistance of competent counsel. An experienced OUI attorney can assist you in negotiating the best possible outcome for your case.


If you have any further questions about Operating Under the Influence in Connecticut or would like the representation of an experienced attorney to assist you, contact our Managing Partner Joseph Maya directly via email at JMaya@Mayalaw.com or by telephone at (203) 221-3100 for a free consultation.

Motion to Dismiss Denied Where Defendant Failed to Establish Due Process Violation from Pre-Arrest Delay

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

In a criminal law matter, a Superior Court of Connecticut considered a defendant’s pre-trial motion to dismiss charges against her due to “unreasonable delay” in prosecutorial efforts.

Case Background

This case arose from an incident that occurred on November 29, 2006, in New Haven, CT. The defendant was involved in an automobile collision with a city bus, resulting in her month-long hospitalization before she returned to her residence, which she occupied prior to and after the accident. A detective prepared an arrest warrant, which was signed on December 14, 2006, but made only one attempt to serve it on the defendant, which was unsuccessful. Approximately fifteen months of inaction passed before the defendant “turned herself in,” indicating she became award of the arrest warrant.

The defendant was charged with second-degree assault with a motor vehicle (Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) § 53a-60d), operating under the influence (CGS § 14-227a), and evading responsibility (CGS § 14-224(b)). She filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that warrant was not served within a reasonable time and beyond the statute of limitations. She further claimed that the pre-arrest delay violated her constitutionally protected due process rights. In support of her motion, the defendant did not present any evidence of “the impact, if any, the fifteen-month delay had on the defendant’s ability to present a defense.”

What Constitutes an Unreasonable Delay?

Under CGS § 54-193(b), our statute of limitations law, the State can prosecute an individual for a crime resulting in a sentence in excess of one year within five years after the date of the offense. However, “the warrant must still be executed without unreasonable delay to preserve the primary purpose of the statute of limitations.” Where a defendant asserts due process violations stemming from pre-arrest delays, he or she must prove “both that (1) actual substantial prejudice resulted from the delay and (2) that the reasons for the delay were wholly unjustifiable, as where the state seeks to gain a tactical advantage.”

There is no per se rule regarding whether the length of a delay is unreasonable. In State v. Crawford, a decision rendered by Connecticut’s Supreme Court, the arrest warrant was not executed for more than two years after it was issued, yet this did not warrant a dismissal of the charges.

Court’s Ruling

In this case, the Superior Court found that the fifteen-month delay was not per se unreasonable, in large part referencing the longer and unexplained, yet permissible delay in Crawford. Even if the delay due to a lack of due diligence was found unreasonable, “[t]he evidence presented to this court did not demonstrate that the defendant has suffered any disadvantage.” The defendant did not provide any evidence of prejudice beyond “mere allegations,” and there was “no evidence in the record to support a claim that the state sought to gain a tactical advantage over the defendant by virtue of the pre-arrest delay.” Therefore, the Superior Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

When faced with a charge of evading responsibility, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.