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.

State of Rhode Island v. Kimberly Medeiros, C.A. T08-0033 (October 1, 2008)

State of Rhode Island v. Kimberly Medeiros, C.A. T08-0033 (October 1, 2008).pdf
Appeals Panel
10/01/2008
State of Rhode Island v. Kimberly Medeiros, C.A. T08-0033 (October 1, 2008)

Reasonable Grounds/Probable Cause

The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-26-4 (duty on collision with unattended vehicle) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Defendant argued that the trial judge erred in sustaining the violation of refusal to submit to a chemical test because the dispatch received by the Officer was insufficient to furnish him with probable cause to arrest the Defendant for leaving the scene of an accident. Here, the Officer received a detailed description of the Defendant and there was no one else in the vicinity matching the description. Once in contact with the Defendant, the Officer observed that her breath and person emanated an odor of alcohol, her speech was slurred, her eyes were bloodshot and watery, and she was unsteady on her feet. The Panel further held that the Officer had probable cause to arrest the Defendant because a reasonably prudent person would have believed it was more probable than not that the Defendant’s vehicle collided with the unoccupied vehicle. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violation of refusal to submit to a chemical test.

State of Rhode Island v. Kimberly Medeiros, C.A. T08-0033 (October 1, 2008).pdf

Appeals Panel
10/01/2008
State of Rhode Island v. Kimberly Medeiros, C.A. T08-0033 (October 1, 2008)

Leaving the Scene

The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-26-4 (duty on collision with unattended vehicle) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Defendant asserted that in order to sustain the charge, the trial judge must find that (1) the driver collided with an unoccupied vehicle; (2) the damage has resulted to either vehicle as a result of the collision; and (3) the operator of the vehicle doing the striking failed to notify the driver of the unoccupied vehicle. The Panel held that the trial judge erred in sustaining the violation because there was no evidence that either of the vehicles involved sustained any damage. Accordingly, the Panel reversed the trial judge’s decision and dismissed the duty on collision with unattended vehicle violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Kimberly Medeiros, C.A. T08-0033 (October 1, 2008).pdf