Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 43 — WEIGHTS AND MEASURES · Chapter 750 — Weights and Measures
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 43-7 (2026)

Arrest without warrant. Issuance of orders. Application of condemned tags

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The Commissioner of Weights and Measures, his inspectors and the municipal sealers of weights and measures shall each have power to arrest, without warrant, any violator of the laws relating to weights and measures, and to seize, without warrant, for use as evidence, any false or unsealed weight, measure or weighing or measuring device, or package or amount of any commodity, found to be used, retained, offered or exposed for sale or sold in violation of law. The commissioner, his inspectors and the municipal sealers may also issue stop use, hold and removal orders with respect to any such weights and measures commercially used and stop sale, hold and removal orders with respect to the weight or measure of any such packaged commodities or bulk commodities kept, offered, or exposed for sale. Notwithstanding any other provision of the general statutes or regulations adopted thereunder, the commissioner and his inspectors may also issue stop use, hold and removal orders with respect to any weights and measures devices found to be defective or otherwise in violation of section 22a-174 or regulations adopted under said section. The commissioner, his inspectors and the municipal sealers of weights and measures may apply a condemned tag to any false weight, measure or weighing or measuring device or to any weighing or measuring instrument or device to which a sealer of weights and measures has attached a seal or tag which has been tampered with, marked, defaced, removed, forged or counterfeited.

(1949 Rev., S. 6751; 1959, P.A. 152, S. 60; P.A. 84-279, S. 3; P.A. 88-36; P.A. 95-332, S. 3.)

History: 1959 act deleted reference to county sealers and changed “city” to “municipal”; P.A. 84-279 allowed the application of a condemned tag to any measuring device which has been tampered with; P.A. 88-36 provided for the issuance of stop use, hold and removal orders with respect to weights and measures and of stop sale, hold and removal orders with respect to packaged or bulk commodities; P.A. 95-332 extended stop use, hold and removal powers to cover weights and measure devices found to be defective or otherwise in violation of Sec. 22a-174.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 2001–2019 · leading case: State v. Parker, 992 A.2d 1103 (Conn. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Parker, 992 A.2d 1103 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 54-91b; 13 Practice Book §§ 43-7 14 and 43-10 (1); 15 State v. *845 Arthur H.”
State v. Berube, 775 A.2d 966 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 2× “The defendant now claims that the court should have granted the continuance because the presentence investigation report referenced a psychiatric examina *759 tion of him that had not been made available to him pursuant to Practice Book §§ 43-7 14 and 43-10 (1). 15 “The…”
State v. Walker, 204 A.3d 38 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “It first outlined that our statutes and rules of practice, particularly General Statutes § 54-91b and Practice Book §§ 43-7 and 43-10 (1), protect a defendant's due process right not to be sentenced on the basis of untrue or unreliable information.”
State v. Olson, 973 A.2d 1284 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 3× “” Practice Book § 43-7 provides that the report “shall be provided to the judicial authority, and copies thereof shall be provided to the prosecuting authority and to the defendant or his or her counsel in sufficient time for them to prepare adequately for the sentencing…”
State v. Charles F., 36 A.3d 731 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). “In this motion, the defendant argued that he did not receive the report forty-eight hours before sentencing as required by Practice Book § 43-7 and that, as a result of this untimely receipt, he was unable to correct several inaccuracies, including (1) the statement in the…”
Barese v. Clark, 773 A.2d 946 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). “) Practice Book § 43-7 provides in relevant part that the “report .”
State v. Pierce, 21 A.3d 877 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 3× “See Practice Book § 43-7. 4 When the sentencing hearing resumed approximately fifty minutes later, defense counsel stated on the record that he and the defendant had reviewed the 1999 report fully and that they were ready to proceed.”
State v. Bozelko (Conn. App. Ct. 2015). “, 843; and that the procedural mecha- nisms set forth in the General Statutes and our rules of practice, specifically, General Statutes § 54-91b, and Practice Book §§ 43-7 and 43-10 (1), are the means by which defendants are protected from such due process violations; id.”
Casiano v. Comm'r of Corr. (Conn. 2015). “’’ Practice Book § 43-7. At the sentencing hearing, the court ‘‘shall afford the parties an opportunity to be heard and, in its discretion, to present evidence on any matter rele- vant to the disposition, and to explain or controvert the presentence investigation report .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.