Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision denying the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test).  The Defendant argued that Rule 33 of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure required the trial magistrate to dismiss the charge because the Defendant’s arraignment was not scheduled within two weeks of the date the citation was issued.  Here, the Defendant’s arraignment was scheduled three days after the two week period expired.  The Panel explained that although Rule 33 does require an arraignment be scheduled within two weeks of the date of citation, the rule does not require dismissal if the rule is violated.  The Panel noted that consistent with State of Rhode Island v. Ladieu, T10-0022 (2010), a dismissal based on an error in a summons is warranted only when the defendant is prejudiced by the error. In Ladieu, the panel noted that prejudice occurred when the police deliberately destroyed evidence after a six-week delay. Here, the trial magistrate asked the Defendant how the three day delay had prejudiced him, and the Defendant could not point to any facts demonstrating prejudice.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.