Appeals Panel
04/29/2009
City of Warwick v. Marcus Thomas, C.A. No. T08-0152 Rights for Use at Station
Rights for Use at Station
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-21 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Appeals Panel held that the “Rights for Use at Scene” and “Rights for Use at Station” are sufficient to inform a defendant of his rights, even though the rights associated with civil and criminal charges are slightly different. The Court held that both “rights” cards were read to defendant and the defendant indicated that he understood them. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.City of Warwick v. Marcus Thomas, C.A. No. T08-0152 (April 29, 2009).pdf
Appeals Panel
04/29/2009
City of Warwick v. Marcus Thomas, C.A. No. T08-152-Inability to Cure a Refusal by Subsequently Submitting
Inability to Cure a Refusal by Subsequently Submitting
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Appeals Panel held that the defendant did not have the ability to “cure” a refusal to submit by subsequently submitting to a chemical test. The Court held that even though the defendant testified that he eventually agreed to submit to a chemical test, this did not cure his previous refusal to do so. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision sustaining the violation against the defendant.
City of Warwick v. Marcus Thomas, C.A. No. T08-0152 (April 29, 2009).pdf
Appeals Panel
04/29/2009
City of Warwick v. Marcus Thomas, C.A. No. T08-152- Opportunity to Make a Phone Call
Telephone Call
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 §31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Appeals Panel held that §12-7-20 affords a defendant an opportunity to make a phone call, but not the right to the presence of counsel when making the decision of whether or not to submit to a chemical test. The Court held that although no counsel was present, the defendant was afforded the opportunity to make a call to an attorney and chose not to. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.
City of Warwick v. Marcus Thomas, C.A. No. T08-0152 (April 29, 2009).pdf
Appeals Panel
04/29/2009
City of Warwick v. Marcus Thomas, C.A. No. T08-152-Rights for use at Scene/Station
Rights for Use at the Scene
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-21 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Appeals Panel held that the “Rights for Use at Scene” and “Rights for Use at Station” are sufficient to inform a defendant of his rights, even though the rights associated with civil and criminal charges are slightly different. The Court held that both “rights” cards were read to defendant and the defendant indicated that he understood them. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.
City of Warwick v. Marcus Thomas, C.A. No. T08-0152 (April 29, 2009).pdf