District Court
11/03/2009
Marcus Thomas v. RITT, A.A. No. 09-66 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 defendant contended that the “Rights” cards in general, and its mention of the right to a confidential phone call, created an impression that he had the right to the advice of counsel before deciding whether to submit to a chemical test. The Court held that the language of the “Rights” cards is easily reconciled with the rule in Dunn v. Petit, 388 A.2d 809 (1978) that there is no right to counsel at the moment of the decision as to whether or not to submit to a chemical test. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.Marcus Thomas v. RITT, A.A. No.: 09-66 (November 3, 2009).pdf
District Court
11/03/2009
Marcus Thomas v. RITT, A.A. No. 09-66- Inability to “Cure” a Refusal by Subsequently Submitting
Inability to Cure a Refusal by Subsequently Submitting
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 there was no statutory mechanism in Rhode Island allowing a defendant to cure an initial decision to refuse a chemical test. Further, as of the time of the hearing, there was no controlling precedent from the R.I. Supreme Court on the issue. Additionally, the Court declined to fashion such a curative measure when the General Assembly had yet to take on the issue. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.
Marcus Thomas v. RITT, A.A. No.: 09-66 (November 3, 2009).pdf
District Court
11/03/2009
Marcus Thomas v. RITT, A.A. No. 09-66- Opportunity to Make a Phone Call
Telephone Call
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 right established by R.I.G.L § 12-7-20 to make a phone call within one hour of the arrest is exercised when the defendant makes a phone call; it is not necessary that the defendant actually make contact with an attorney. Here, the defendant was provided with this opportunity by the arresting officers. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.
Marcus Thomas v. RITT, A.A. No.: 09-66 (November 3, 2009).pdf
District Court
11/03/2009
Marcus Thomas v. RITT, A.A. No. 09-66 Rights for use at Scene/Station
Rights for Use at the Scene
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 defendant contended that the “Rights” cards in general, and its mention of the right to a confidential phone call, created an impression that he had the right to the advice of counsel before deciding whether to submit to a chemical test. The Court held that the language of the “Rights” cards is easily reconciled with the rule in Dunn v. Petit, 388 A.2d 809 (1978) that there is no right to counsel at the moment of the decision as to whether or not to submit to a chemical test. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.
Marcus Thomas v. RITT, A.A. No.: 09-66 (November 3, 2009).pdf