Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27 2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadways).  Defendant argued that the Officer failed to arrest him prior to requesting he submit to a chemical test.  Specifically, Defendant rejected the trial magistrate’s finding that he was under arrest when the medical staff finished treatment and transferred custody of Defendant to the officers.  The Panel explained that, under State v. Bailey, 417 A.2d 915 (R.I. 1980), a court determines when a person is under arrest by considering: (1) the extent to which a person’s freedom of movement has been curtailed and the degree of force used by the police; (2) the belief of a reasonably innocent person in these same circumstances; and (3) whether the person had the option of not going with the police.  See id. at 915-18.  The Panel held that when transfer of custody from medical personnel to the officers took place, the Officers made a joint decision to arrest the Defendant and that the Defendant did not have the option of leaving the officers custody, thereby effectuating a legally valid arrest.  The Panel noted that the officers then read the Defendant his Rights for Use at Station/Hospital, at which point the Defendant refused to submit to a chemical test.  The Panel held the trial magistrate’s decision was not in error, and, accordingly, sustained the charged violations.