Operating without Insurance

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-47-9 (proof of financial security). The Court held that the state had the burden of proof to show that the defendant was asked to produce proof of financial security and failed to do so. The Court also held that the vehicle being registered in the state along with a scienter requirement were elements of a violation of § 31-47-9. Here, the state failed to show that the defendant was asked to produce of financial security, failed to prove the vehicle was registered, and could not show that the defendant knowingly drove without financial security. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Appeals Panel’s decision and dismissed the violation against the defendant.

Augusto Tiquila v. (RITT), A.A. No. 05-04 (March 23, 2006).pdf