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.

Home » Case Files

Eric McNamara v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 09-99 (August 5, 2008)

Eric McNamara v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 09-99 (August 5, 2008).pdf
District Court
08/05/2008
Eric McNamara v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 09-99 Rights for Use at Station

Rights for Use at the Scene

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that the defendant raised the same issue as that which was raised in Such v. State of Rhode Island, 950A.2d 1150 (R.I. 2008). That decision renders the issue moot in this case. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against defendant.
(Note: In Such v. State of Rhode Island, 950A.2d 1150 (R.I. 2008), the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled that a budget bill which added a $200 assessment to the refusal statute (§ 31-27-2.1) was not intended to negate the penalties in the refusal statute. Instead, the Court ruled that both the budget bill and the refusal statute would be operative in assessing the penalties for violating §31-27-2.1.)Eric McNamara v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 09-99 (August 5, 2008).pdf

District Court
08/05/2008
Eric McNamara v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 09-99 Phone Call

Telephone Call

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that where the defendant was informed of his rights by a reading of the Rights for use at Scene/Station cards, and where he then declined to make a phone call, the defendant was in fact afforded an opportunity to make a confidential phone call. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.Eric McNamara v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 09-99 (August 5, 2008).pdf

District Court
08/05/2008
Eric McNamara v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 09-99 Sworn Report

Sworn Report

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that the arresting officer’s sworn report was admitted for the limited purpose of showing compliance with procedural law, and neither for the truth of the matter asserted nor to determine guilt or innocence. Therefore, the admission of the sworn report was not prejudicial. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.Eric McNamara v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 09-99 (August 5, 2008).pdf

District Court
08/05/2008
Eric McNamara v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 09-99, Reasonable Suspicion

Reasonable Suspicion to Stop

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that where the defendant drove erratically by abruptly cutting across a lane onto an exit without using his directional, crossed over the cement chatter strip, stopped on the exit ramp, and then speed up once the arresting officer pulled behind him, there was reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant. Furthermore, the fact that the other charges for motor vehicle violations which created the reasonable suspicion were dropped, does not destroy the reasonable suspicion for the stop. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.Eric McNamara v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 09-99 (August 5, 2008).pdf