Procedure

The Defendant appealed a municipal court trial judge’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 §31-28-9 (owners liability for parking tickets).  The Defendant argued that the trial judge failed to use the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, treated the case as a criminal case, and failed to give adequate time for the Defendant to prepare for trial.  Additionally, the Defendant argued that the Pawtucket Police did not disclose all relevant documents and violated the United States Constitutional double jeopardy clause by charging the Defendant twice with the same infraction.  The Panel noted that the Traffic Tribunal and Municipal Courts adhere to the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure and not the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when addressing a traffic violation and found that the trial judge followed the correct rules for her decision.  Additionally, the Panel noted the Defendant was brought before Pawtucket Municipal Court in a civil violation, not criminal, and that the double jeopardy clause cannot be violated regarding civil matters.  The Panel also found that the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure address the timing of trial and discovery of documents and that the Defendant never moved for additional time or document discovery.  Thus, the Panel found the trial judge followed proper procedure by hearing the trial without additional time or discovery.

City of Pawtucket v. Matthew Lambert, C.A. No. M14-0029 (February 4, 2016).pdf