District Court
04/15/2014
Bruce Bartels v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 13-164 Operation of Motor Vehicle
Operation of Motor Vehicle
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27- 2.1 (refusal to submit) and 1956 § 31-22-21.1 (open container). The defendant claimed the citing officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe he was driving while intoxicated because the officer approached the defendant while he was outside the vehicle in a parking lot with a flat tire and “rummaging through the trunk.” However, the District Court held that the Appeals Panel did not err in concluding the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the defendant had operated the vehicle while under the influence because the defendant had admitted he had driven the vehicle, admitted he was coming from Foxwoods, and there were markings on the tire which suggested to the officer that the tire had gone flat while being driven. Furthermore, the officer testified that the location of the defendant was not within one-half mile of a drinking establishment. Therefore, the Court concluded that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the defendant operated a vehicle under the influence and sustained the violation.Bruce Bartels v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 13-164 (April 15, 2014).pdf
District Court
03/15/2014
Bruce Bartels v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 13-164 Open Container
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27- 2.1 (refusal to submit) and 1956 § 31-22-21.1 (open container). Defendant claimed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of open container was clearly erroneous because the citing officer did not observe the defendant driving, but only observed an open container in the center console of the defendant’s vehicle after approaching the defendant in a parking lot while he was standing outside the car “rummaging through the trunk.” The District Court held that there was no evidence from which a fact-finder could determine that the beer can was open while the defendant was driving because the officer testified that he did not know when the contents of the beer can were consumed. Accordingly, the Court found the decision of the Appeals Panel was clearly erroneous in light of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence of record and reversed the decision.Bruce Bartels v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 13-164 (April 15, 2014).pdf
District Court
04/15/2014
Bruce Bartels v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 13-164 Procedure
Procedure
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27- 2.1 (refusal to submit) and 1956 § 31-22-21.1 (open container). Defendant claimed the magistrate erred by admitting hearsay evidence because he allowed the citing officer to testify regarding statements the defendant had made about the incident. The District Court concluded the officer’s testimony regarding the defendant’s statements were not hearsay because they fell within Rule 801(d)(2)(A) as they were the statements of a party-opponent. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals panel sustaining the violation. Bruce Bartels v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 13-164 (April 15, 2014).pdf
District Court
04/15/2014
Bruce Bartels v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 13-164 Reasaonble Grounds
Reasonable Grounds/Probable Cause
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27- 2.1 (refusal to submit) and 1956 § 31-22-21.1 (open container). The defendant claimed the citing officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe he was driving while intoxicated because the officer approached the defendant while he was outside the vehicle in a parking lot with a flat tire and “rummaging through the trunk.” However, the District Court held that the Appeals Panel did not err in concluding the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the defendant had operated the vehicle while under the influence because the defendant had admitted he had driven the vehicle, admitted he was coming from Foxwoods, and there were markings on the tire which suggested to the officer that the tire had gone flat while being driven. Furthermore, the officer testified that the location of the defendant was not within one-half mile of a drinking establishment. Therefore, the Court concluded that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the defendant operated a vehicle under the influence and sustained the violation.Bruce Bartels v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 13-164 (April 15, 2014).pdf