District Court
02/18/2011
Leslie Haley v. State of Rhode Island DC, A.A. No. 10-132 Collateral Estoppel
Collateral Estoppel
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply because the defendant impliedly waived her right to argue the issue of whether or not she was the operator of the vehicle by taking the stand and testifying that she was, in fact, the operator. Despite the defendant’s contention that the state failed to establish that she was the operator of the vehicle in prior proceedings, the defendant’s testimony serve as an implied waiver of her right to argue that issue. Therefore, the Court affirmed the Appeals Panel’s decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.
Leslie Haley v. State of Rhode Island DC, A.A. No. 10-132 (February 18, 2011).pdf
District Court
02/18/2011
Leslie Haley v. State of Rhode Island DC, A.A. No. 10-132 Rights for use at Station
Rights for Use at Station
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that the defendant was properly informed of the penalties associated with a refusal to submit to a chemical test by the “Right for use of Station” even though the seventy-five dollar license reinstatement fee was not specifically enumerated therein. The reinstatement of a suspended license is optional, and, therefore, the defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of the specific amount of the fee. Therefore, the Court affirmed the Appeals Panel’s decision to sustain the charge against the defendant.
Leslie Haley v. State of Rhode Island DC, A.A. No. 10-132 (February 18, 2011).pdf
District Court
02/18/2011
Leslie Haley v. State of Rhode Island DC, A.A. No.10-132 Sworn Report
Sworn Report
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that the officer’s testimony at trial concerning an “affidavit” was sufficient evidence to satisfy the statutorily required “sworn report,” despite the different terminology that the officer used. Therefore, the Court affirmed the Appeals Panel’s decision and sustained the charge against the defendant.
Leslie Haley v. State of Rhode Island DC, A.A. No. 10-132 (February 18, 2011).pdf
District Court
02/18/2011
10-132 Preliminary Breath Test
Preliminary Breath Test
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). Defendant argued that she had fulfilled her obligation under the implied consent law to submit to chemical test because she consented to a PBT after she had been arrested for suspicion of DUI. Section 31-27-2.1 defines a “chemical” test as a test that operates on the principle of infrared light absorption. The District Court held that the record was devoid of whether the PBT used to test the defendant operated on the principle of infrared light absorption. Consequently, the Court could not determine whether the defendant had complied with the requirements of § 31-27-2.1 by submitting to a “chemical” test. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the Traffic Tribunal for further factual findings regarding the technology that the PBT utilized.
Leslie Haley v. State of Rhode Island DC, A.A. No. 10-132 (February 18, 2011).pdf
District Court
02/18/2011
Leslie Haley v. State of Rhode Island DC, A.A. No.10-132 Rights for Use at Station
Rights for Use at Station
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit). The Court held that the defendant was not prejudiced when the defendant was told two different numbers in regards to a license reinstatement fee. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.
Leslie Haley v. State of Rhode Island DC, A.A. No. 10-132 (February 18, 2011).pdf
District Court
02/18/2011
10-132 Identification
Identifying the Defendant
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit). Defendant claimed that she was not properly identified as the operator of the vehicle. The District Court held that the defendant was identified by the officer of the vehicle and the defendant admitted that she was driving the vehicle. Accordingly, the Court held that the trial magistrate did not err and sustained the violation against the defendant.
Leslie Haley v. State of Rhode Island DC, A.A. No. 10-132 (February 18, 2011).pdf