The defendant appeals from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the plaintiff’s appeal from the defendant’s decision suspending the plaintiff’s driver’s license, pursuant to General Statutes § 14-227b,1 for operating a vehicle while under the influ*190ence of intoxicating liquor and refusing to submit to chemical breath tests. The trial court sustained the plaintiffs appeal on the sole ground that a Wethersfield police officer had unlawfully pursued the plaintiff from the town of Wethersfield into the town of Glastonbury under General Statutes § 54-lf.2
At the time that the police officer first observed the plaintiff, he noted that the plaintiff was operating his motor vehicle at what appeared to be an excessive rate of speed and unlawfully changing lanes. Thus, at the time that the officer pursued the plaintiff into Glastonbury, he suspected only that the defendant had committed motor vehicle violations under General Statutes §§ 14-218a3 and 14-236.4 When the officer stopped the plaintiff’s vehicle in Glastonbury, the investigation that he conducted led him to believe that the plaintiff had been operating his vehicle while under the influence of liquor. The officer thereupon arrested the plaintiff and charged him with a violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a).5 The trial court found that the officer had *191unlawfully stopped the plaintiff in Glastonbury for violations of §§ 14-218a and 14-236 and, thus, had unlawfully arrested the plaintiff for operating a vehicle while under the influence of liquor in violation of § 14-227a (a). As a result, the trial court found the commissioner’s decision clearly erroneous. This appeal followed.
This case is controlled by our Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Harrison, 228 Conn. 758, 638 A.2d 601 (1994). In Harrison, our Supreme Court interpreted the term “offense” as used in § 54-If to include motor vehicle violations. Id., 765. Therefore, in accordance with Harrison, we conclude that the Wethersfield officer had lawfully pursued the plaintiff across town lines, had lawfully stopped the vehicle and had lawfully arrested the plaintiff. Thus, the trial court improperly determined that the commissioner’s decision was clearly erroneous.
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal.