The following excerpt is from ACE Partners, LLC v. Town of E. Hartford, 883 F.3d 190 (2nd Cir. 2018):
That conclusion is only reinforced by the statute's reference to requirements specified "at the time of issuance." Conn. Gen. Stat. 21-100(a). This makes plain that requirements need not be specified for applicants in advance of their applications. Rather, the police chief's discretion is broad enough to allow him to specify requirements right up until the time of issuance to address concerns raised by facts and circumstances attending that application. Thus, a police chief can decide to issue a license, but only on condition that the licensee abide by requirements specified at the time of issuance. It necessarily follows that the chief can also decline to issue licenses where it is apparent that an applicant already fails to satisfy such requirements. Indeed, it would be absurd to construe 21-100(a) otherwise, so as to allow a police chief, for example, to issue a license on condition that no employee of the licensee be arrested for criminal activity on the premises, but to preclude him from denying a license to an applicant whose employees have already been arrested and are pending investigation for such conduct. See generally Allen v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs. , 324 Conn. 292, 152 A.3d 488, 501 (Conn. 2016) (discussing "well established" tenet that "those who promulgate statutes do not intend absurd consequences or bizarre results" (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted) ), cert. denied , U.S. , 137 S.Ct. 2217, 198 L.Ed.2d 659 (2017).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.