RI District Court and Traffic Tribunal Case Law

This website is in no way affiliated with, sponsored by, or supported by the Rhode Island Judiciary, the Rhode Island District Court, or Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal.

Town of Richmond v. Bruce Bartels C.A.T13-0021

Town of Richmond v. Bruce Bartels C.A.T13-0021.pdf
Appeals Panel
09/09/2013
Town of Richmond v. Bruce Bartels C.A.T13-0021 Operation of Motor Vehicle

Operation of Motor Vehicle

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31- 27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-21.1 (presence of alcoholic beverages while operating or riding in a motor vehicle). Defendant challenged whether the officer had reasonable grounds to ask the defendant to submit to a chemical test where the defendant was approached by the officer while he was outside the vehicle in a parking lot. The court held that the officer had reasonable grounds to infer that the defendant had been operating a vehicle while under the influence because the defendant stated that he had been driving, he was observed “rummaging through the trunk” of the vehicle, marks on the defendant’s tires that suggested the vehicle had been operated recently, and there were “no establishments within a half mile of the parking lot where [the defendant] could have consumed alcohol after the vehicle was parked.” Therefore, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate.Town of Richmond v. Bruce Bartels C.A.T13-0021.pdf

Appeals Panel
09/09/2013
Town of Richmond v. Bruce Bartels, C.A. No. T13-0021 (September 9, 2013) Reasonable Grounds

Reasonable Grounds/Probable Cause

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31- 27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-21.1 (presence of alcoholic beverages while operating or riding in a motor vehicle). Defendant challenged whether the officer had reasonable grounds to ask the defendant to submit to a chemical test where the defendant was approached by the officer while he was outside the vehicle in a parking lot. The court held that the officer had reasonable grounds to infer that the defendant had been operating a vehicle while under the influence because the defendant stated that he had been driving, he was observed “rummaging through the trunk” of the vehicle, marks on the defendant’s tires that suggested the vehicle had been operated recently, and there were “no establishments within a half mile of the parking lot where [the defendant] could have consumed alcohol after the vehicle was parked.” Therefore, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate.Town of Richmond v. Bruce Bartels C.A.T13-0021.pdf

Appeals Panel
09/09/2013
Town of Richmond v. Bruce Bartels, C.A. No. T13-0021 (September 9, 2013) Hearsay

Hearsay

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31- 27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test), and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-21.1 (presence of alcoholic beverages while operating or riding in a motor vehicle). The Court held that the officer’s testimony regarding a statement the defendant made at the scene that “[he] was driving” was admissible. As the testimony was offered against the defendant at trial and was the defendant’s own statement, it did not amount to hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(A). Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision and sustained the charge against the defendant. Town of Richmond v. Bruce Bartels C.A.T13-0021.pdf