In 2019, at a state Department of Motor Vehicles license suspension hearing for a client recently charged with drunken driving in Stonington, New London-based attorney Drzialav “Dado” Coric made what he thought was a sound argument.

When submitting reports to the DMV about a drunken driving arrest, police need to follow a three-day deadline dictated by state statute, Coric argued. In his client’s case, police had waited five days to complete the report.

His arguments were rejected by the DMV officer and later by the Appellate Court. It took an argument before the state Supreme Court to prove his case.

The Supreme Court issued a 5-0 decision in Anthony J. Marshall III v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles earlier this month which reversed an Appellate Court decision that had led to his client’s license suspension.

Marshall, of Ledyard, had been arrested on drunken driving charges on July 14, 2019 in Stonington following what police described as a hit-and-run crash in Westerly.

The Supreme Court ruled that that police do in fact need to file paperwork in a timely manner if they expect a person’s license to be suspended and that the “DMV hearing officer abused her discretion” when she suspended Marshall’s license, according to the written decision.

Marshall, records show, was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and received 18 months of probation.

Coric, in a recent interview, said based on the fact that the DMV hearing officer and the state Appellate Court had rejected his argument, his takeaway was that there had been an erosion of rights through the years.

“We didn’t think this was fair and appropriate and at some point you have to stand up for what’s right,” Coric said. “The purpose here is to guarantee people’s rights. It in no way impacts the DMV’s ability to give license suspensions,.”

A representative from the Stonington Police Department did not immediately respond to request for comment.

Coric, at the Aug. 19, 2019 DMV hearing, argued that police are required under state statute 14-227b to submit a report about a drunken driving arrest within three business days in the absence of an appearance by the arresting officer, who in the case was Stonington Police Officer Jeffrey Hewes.

In Marshall’s case, the police report was completed five days after Marshall’s arrest and therefore not admissible, Coric argued.

Coric said police were not complying with a statute that was designed to make a police officer’s job less cumbersome. Instead of showing up at each hearing, police need only submit a report. But the Appellate Court dismissed Coric’s appeal and ruled that strict compliance by police was not necessary because of language in the statute, which says police “shall prepare a report of the incident and shall mail or otherwise transmit (the report) ....to the Department of motor Vehicles within three business days.”

Coric said the court decided the statute, because of the use of the word “shall” was “directory” and not mandatory.

“Our argument was of course it’s mandatory. The purpose of this is to allow evidence that normally wouldn’t come in,” Coric said.

Coric said the reason there is a three-day deadline is to ensure the information provided by the DMV is reliable. The further away from an incident, the less reliable someone’s memory is, he said. The Supreme Court, in its decision, ruled that the legislature when crafting the statute, “determined that the appropriate time frame to imbue the report with sufficient reliability is three business days.”

Coric said that while the arrest and suspension is years in the past for his client, he thinks the ruling may erase the suspension from his record.

Locally, police said they are aware of the opinion. Ledyard Police Captain Kenneth Creutz said officers at the department strictly adhere to the statutorily mandated time frame and should have no impact on the department.

East Lyme Police Chief Michael Finkelstein said that while officers are aware of the deadlines, he thinks the statute might be ripe for changes.

“Since it was written, the nature of DUI investigations and arrests have changed significantly,” Finkelstein said in an email.

With the legalization of marijuana, Finkelstein said departments now have trained drug recognition experts who produce “a substantial report compared to what was completed previously.”

“This work leads to better investigations and more solid enforcement,” Finkelstein said. “Also, changes to DUI arrest requirements subsequent to the legalization of marijuana require additional steps in DUI investigations that must be documented.”

Even with basic drunken driving arrests, Finkelstein said many issues unrelated to that individual case “can affect the ability for that case to be completed and transmitted, non-electronically, within three days.”

g.smith@theday.com